Laughing & Disability:

Comedy, Collaborative Authorship and Down Under Mystery Tour

By Michael Noonan BA (FTV), B.Bus (Accountancy), MA (Research) (Film and Television Production).

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Research) (Film and Television).

2010

School of Film and Television, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Principal Supervisor: Geoff Portmann. Associate Supervisor: Professor Alan McKee, PhD.

S TATEMENT OF O RIGINAL A UTHORSHIP

he work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to T meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made.

Signature: ______

Date: ______

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

List of Appendices ...... v Supplementary Materials ...... v Thesis Abstract ...... vi Keywords...... vi Acknowledgements ...... vii

C HAPTER 1: M AKING PEOPLE WANT TO LISTEN

1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background to the study ...... 3 1.3 The research question ...... 7 1.4 Research integrity ...... 9 1.5 Outrage and misrepresentation ...... 10 1.6 Ongoing legal proceedings ...... 11 1.7 Thesis structure ...... 12 1.8 The creative work ...... 12 1.9 The exegesis ...... 12

C HAPTER 2: D ISABILITY ON SCREEN, NARRATIVES, AUTHORSHIP AND COM EDY

2.1 Introduction ...... 15 2.2 Why are representations important? ...... 16 2.3 Disability on film and television ...... 20 By the numbers ...... 20 Disabled person as ‘victim’ ...... 22 Disabled person as ‘monster’ ...... 23 Disabled person as ‘hero’ ...... 24 2.4 The search for positive images ...... 25 Dominant representations are ‘unrealistic’ ...... 25 Positive equals normal…?...... 26 Positive + realistic + normal = indefinable ...... 32 2.5 Authorship: who’s in charge of the representations?...... 34 Disabled actors, not ‘disabled-face’ ...... 34 Disabled actors turn audiences off ...... 36 In front and behind: disabled people as creators of content...... 38 A collaborative approach: not ‘us’ and ‘them’ ...... 42 Stable readings still rely on who’s speaking ...... 47

iii

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

2.6 Reaching audiences ...... 48 The classic narrative approach ...... 48 Form or formulaic? ...... 51 2.7 Tackling comedy: now it gets serious ...... 53 Comedy about disability isn’t funny ...... 54 Comedy requires complex interactions ...... 57 2.8 Conclusions ...... 60

C HAPTER 3: R ESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction ...... 63 3.2 The methodology ...... 64 3.3 Problem-driven but not led ...... 66 3.4 Expressing findings differently ...... 67 3.5 Conflicting roles ...... 69 3.6 Drawing on many methodologies ...... 70 3.7 The creative practice ...... 72 3.8 Ethics and consent ...... 73

C HAPTER 4: T HE DOING OF THE CREATIVE WORK

4.1 Introduction ...... 77 4.2 The use of concept, structure and stylistic approach ...... 78 4.3 The concept ...... 81 4.4 The structure ...... 90 4.5 The stylistic approach ...... 95 4.6 A return to structure: yowies, big cats and ‘belonging’ ...... 96 4.7 Revisiting the concept: Malcolm and the narrator ...... 101 4.8 Changing the format ...... 106 4.9 The feature film ...... 109 4.10 Intellectual disability and the fictional narrative ...... 120 4.11 Fiction v reality ...... 120 4.12 Blurred lines ...... 123 4.13 Managing external agendas ...... 129 4.14 Individuals, not a ‘disability community’ ...... 129 4.15 Protecting disabled people ...... 132 4.16 Disabled people can be funny ...... 136 4.17 Conclusion ...... 139

C HAPTER 5: C ONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction ...... 143 5.2 What has been learnt ...... 145 5.3 The future for disability narratives ...... 149

iv

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

L IST OF A PPENDICES

1.1 UHREC audit findings ...... 153 1.2 Letter from National Health and Medical Research Council ...... 156 1.3 Original concept document for Darren and James ...... 157 1.4 Notes on PhD submission copy of Down Under Mystery Tour ...... 161 1.5 Full transcript for Down Under Mystery Tour ...... 163

References ...... 195 Films and television programs...... 211

S UPPLEMENTARY M ATE RIAL

DVD consisting of:

(1) Feature-length comedy film Down Under Mystery Tour (70 minutes).

v

T HESIS A BSTRACT

his thesis is an exploration of representation, authorship and creative T collaboration in disability comedy, the centrepiece of which is a feature- length film starring, co-created and co-written by three intellectually-disabled people. The film, entitled Down Under Mystery Tour, aims to entertain, and be accessible to, a mainstream audience, one that would not normally care about disability or listen to disabled voices. In the past, the failure of these voices to reach audiences has been blamed on poor training, marginal timeslots and indifferent audiences. But this project seeks an alternative approach, building collaboration between disabled and non-disabled people to express voice, conceive, construct and produce a filmed narrative, and engage willing audiences who want to listen.

K EYWORDS

Authorship Collaborative authorship Comedy Creative practice as research Disability Disability comedy Disability studies Ethics in filmmaking Fiction Filmmaking Filmic representation Informed consent Intellectual disability Narrative Mock-documentary

vi

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

his thesis would not have been possible without the involvement of T three unique and remarkable men: Malcolm Bebb, Darren Magee and James Bradley. I am indebted to them for their honesty, their creativity and their trust. My genuine thanks also to their families and loved ones, who were vigorously supportive of this project: Deb and Adrian Bradley, Shane and Amy

Magee, and Gordon Bebb.

The film at the heart of this project would not have been made without John Hart and The Spectrum Organization, whose support went far beyond a financial investment. Their unwavering faith and guidance was invaluable, particularly in difficult times of public hysteria and legal conundrums.

My sincere appreciation extends to my supervisors, Professor Alan McKee and

Associate Professor Geoff Portmann, whose dedication, patience, encouragement and professional guidance has enabled me to survive this journey. I am grateful also to the Queensland University of Technology and the many staff and students who stood by me and my work. I am particularly indebted to Brad Haseman,

Assistant Dean Research, and Sue Street, Dean, for their wisdom and professionalism. Thank you also to the knowledgeable, diligent and caring staff of the QUT film and television department: Jeanette McGown, Helen Yeates,

Wayne Taylor, John Willsteed, Jon Silver, Cody Jarrett and Sean Maher.

vii

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As this thesis demonstrates, filmmaking is a collaborative enterprise and the creative work of this project has many fathers: chief among them is the director of photography Linton Vivian, who worked tirelessly on set until the end of every day, and then again at home at night, where he would tidy everything up and meticulously plan for the next day’s shoot. Thank you also to the many cast and crew who gave their time and talent to this work: Dylan Bray, Jacob Schiotz,

Kayne Hunnam, Jo Thomas, Paul Bryant, Peter Cook, Andrew Lofthouse, David

Lazar, T’fer Newsome, David Roosje and Kiran D’Costa. Thank you also to the administrative and technical staff of QUT, who supplied equipment, professional advice, viewing facilities and shooting spaces: Carine Chai, Sue Westbrook, Leo

Keller, Kerrie Miller, Caroline St-Hill, Angela Slatter, Jenny Mayes, James

Debenham, Rob Matthews, Sally Hooke, Nick Chai, and Daniel Nel.

Finally, I would like to thank those who have stood by me with patience and a supportive ear through many years of trials and tribulations: Elsa and Bo

Westerberg, my aunt Pauline Holmes, my sister Maryanne Noonan, and my good friends Carine Chai, Denis Westerberg and Mike Craft. If I have learnt anything from the years of this project, it is the value of friends and family.

viii

C HAPTER O NE: M AKING P EOPLE W ANT T O L ISTEN

1.1 INTRODUCTION

reat words, powerful images and emotive music mean nothing if they fail G to reach anyone. The voices of minorities, no matter how rich, compelling and important they may be, fall silent if no-one is listening. This project is about making people want to listen, not out of guilt or a sense of obligation but because they want to hear a really good story, ‘well told’ (McKee 1998: 20).

Intellectually-disabled people do not arouse great passions in the world of entertainment. Mentioning them in a pitch glazes over the eyes of television broadcasters and commissioning editors, and they’re a turn-off for audiences, unless

Tom Hanks or Dustin Hoffman decide to play them. As themselves, unscripted and un-airbrushed, they and their voices have repeatedly failed to move beyond specialist disability programs and feel-good documentaries. This failure has traditionally been blamed on broadcasters, who won’t give the programs a decent timeslot; governments, who don’t offer adequate training opportunities for

1

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

disabled people; and audiences, who refuse to endure poor quality films and television programs for the sake of the common good (Beatson 1996, see also

Sutherland 1997, Pointon 1997a, Safran 1998, Wolfson and Norden 2000).

But broadcasters, governments and audiences are not at the heart of the problem: it is the quality of the material that is lacking. Improving it means applying techniques that create and sustain accessible, high-quality narratives that are capable of exciting broadcasters and reaching audiences. It is fanciful to expect that such techniques can be applied by inexperienced practitioners, whether they have a disability or not. More impractical is the notion that disabled people can do it all on their own, without the guidance or experience of non-disabled practitioners. Rarely has collaboration between such practitioners and disabled people been considered, presumably because this might contaminate or lessen the disabled voice: ‘no matter how much they love us, [the non-disabled] do not know the inside experience of being disabled’ (Gill, quoted in Shakespeare 2006: 185).

This project will seek to demonstrate that such collaboration can not only improve the quality of disability narratives and their appeal to audiences, but can also enhance the voice of intellectually-disabled people.

In this introductory chapter, I will explain the origins of the project and its path to completion, the principle research questions of the thesis and the structure of the work.

2

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

My graduating film in 1999 was a comedy about disability. It didn’t occur to me back then; I only realised it recently when I was cleaning out some old tapes and I had disability on my mind. Boom was the name of the film and it was about a guy who was born with a boom pole instead of an arm. He wanted to be an actor but this proved impossible because his arm would inevitably enter the shot and draw the ire of the director and crew. Eventually he met a female filmmaker who had a similar disability (she was born with tripod legs) and they fell in love and made movies together. I wrote and directed lots of short comedies after that, mostly about troubled characters facing absurd situations.

I was approached in 2005 by the head of disability support organisation Spectrum, who wanted me to film a documentary about six disabled people travelling to

Egypt. It did not immediately inflame my creative passions: I knew nothing about disability or documentary and I was not at all interested in heart-warming, cause- driven narratives. Nevertheless, the project had some funding and I had nothing really better to do at the time -- so I signed on. Despite my initial reluctance and uninterest, the project exceeded my expectations in many ways. The characters were warm, honest and funny, their individual journeys were engaging and moving, and I saw real potential to reach audiences who, like myself before taking on the project, couldn’t care less about disability.

3

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

The finished film, Unlikely Travellers, had some success as far as documentaries go. It was the eighth most popular film at the Brisbane International Film Festival

(Partridge 2007: see also Berry 2007) and was broadcast to just over 600,0001 people over three nights on ABC-TV (Australia). It also won the IF Award for

Best Australian Documentary (Hutton 2007). But it did not reach mainstream audiences. When it screened to 200 people at the film festival, mainstream moviegoers were at the multiplexes in their thousands; when it screened on ABC-

TV, millions of mainstream viewers were watching three other programs, including Surf Patrol (more than double), Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and

America’s Next Top Model.

I was keen to pursue another disability narrative and empower more disabled voices because I had seen how powerful and insightful they could be. My perspective on disability had changed and I wanted others to experience that change too. But I didn’t see any point in repeating the Unlikely Travellers experience: the next project needed to reach wider audiences, those interested in sitcoms, Hollywood movies and reality TV. It had to aim for the mainstream masses who couldn’t care less about disability.

There have been attempts to reach theses masses with narratives about intellectual disability, most featuring non-disabled actors, some featuring disabled actors and

1 According to OzTAM ratings figures, Unlikely Travellers had an average viewership of 607, 359 people over three nights on November 19, 26 and December 3, 2007. It was the fourth-ranked program in the 8pm-8.30pm timeslot, with Surf Patrol (Network 10) averaging 1.543 million people.

4

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

few successfully blending the two. Hollywood films like Forest Gump, Rain

Man, I Am Sam and, more recently, Adam, have earned both critical and audience acclaim. In Australia, The Black Balloon was the highest grossing domestic film of 2007 (Box Office Mojo 2008: see also IMDb 2008) and won six AFI Awards

(Declegie 2008). These films reached wide audiences but their protagonists were not played by intellectually-disabled people. They were actors playing parts.

Presumably, all of the actors in these films had their own method of interpreting the disabled voice: Luke Ford (playing autistic Charlie in The Black Balloon) went bowling in character and communicated through sign language with the person he was playing (Sutherland 2008); Hugh Dancy (playing the title character in Adam) read books and ‘met people with Asperger’s’ (Masterson 2009: 14-15); and Hanks, Hoffman and Penn probably spent many hours watching video tapes, meeting disabled people and practising their disabled faces in front of mirrors.

Brave, confronting, vulnerable performances they may have been, but ultimately they were interpretations.

When disabled people have played major roles in film and television narratives, they have most often appeared in specialist disability programs and documentaries that even disabled people themselves are tired of seeing (Mulhern 1995: 131).

When they have appeared in fictional narratives, the resulting works have overwhelmingly failed to reach the mainstream. Despite adopting the populist sitcom format, House Gang, an Australian program featuring three intellectually- disabled housemates (Anderson 1997), ran for only two seasons on Australian

5

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

public broadcaster SBS (Williams 1997). The critically acclaimed film Struck By

Lightning, featuring a cast of disabled actors, was not a box office success by any means and is among the ‘least remembered’ of Australian films (Williams 2008: np): ‘you would have trouble finding this at your local DVD store, believe me’

(‘Angela’ at IMDb 1990: np).

Sitting somewhere between these two approaches is The Ringer, a comedy about a man who fakes being mentally disabled to secure a spot on the Special Olympics team. This film secured mainstream multiplex release, and it included both disabled and non-disabled actors in major roles. It drew strong support from many quarters for being a ‘legitimate groundbreaker’ for its inclusive approach

(Downes 2005: A18). The casting of more than 170 mentally disabled actors and extras gave an unprecedented amount of screen time to ‘real people with mental disabilities’ (A18). Although it was pointedly and deliberately not a worthy film, many claimed it brought important, often-ignored issues to the surface by making

‘mental retardation such an integral part of the story and the jokes’ (A18).

Produced by the Farrelly Brothers, who have been criticised in previous film outings for poking fun at a range of mental and physical abnormalities, the film had many critics raving about the film’s positive, means-to-an-end approach: ‘It masquerades as a witless shocker, but reflects up-to-the-minute sensitivities about mental disabilities, is exquisitely sparing in its use of words like ‘retard’ and dispenses an explicit message of tolerance along with its severed-finger jokes and curse words’ (A18). But The Ringer is not without its failings. There is no

6

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

indication that any of the disabled actors contributed meaningfully or creatively to the narrative: indeed, many of their lines appeared forced and unnatural. Despite a ‘permission slip to laugh’ -- endorsements from the National Down Syndrome

Society and the Special Olympics (Elder 2005) -- the disabled voice seems to have come directly from writer Ricky Blitt and director Barry M Blaustein.

If intellectually-disabled people have a voice that’s worth hearing, the challenge lies not only in making sure it is heard but finding a way to fully and freely express it. It is lessened when it’s interpreted by non-disabled actors and creators, and audiences don’t listen when disabled people do it all by themselves. It is a difficult balance to manage.

1.3 THE RESEARCH QUESTION

The research of this thesis involves two interlinked levels of enquiry: the creation and production of a filmed fictional narrative, and the documentation, analysis and evaluation of the process. In doing these things, it seeks to answer the following question:

To what extent is it possible to produce a filmed comedy narrative starring intellectually-disabled people in lead roles that reaches and is accessible to the widest possible mainstream audience and allows the stars to fully, freely and independently:

 Express their voice and view of the world within a constructed narrative;

7

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

 Give meaningful and constructive creative input;

 Have control and be seen to have control over the comedic and narrative

content; and

 Collaborate and improvise within a safe environment?

The journey of Unlikely Travellers made it very clear to me that the depth and complexity of a disabled voice was not something I could create by writing lines of dialogue in a script. I could help shape it, emphasise certain elements above others, and punctuate it with editing and storytelling skills, but replicating the unique, warm, humorous and honest voices of characters like Darren and James was not something I was capable of doing, nor did I want to try.

To this end, this project is about finding a way to give voice to the disabled people

I know, not as representatives of a collective with something ‘special’ to say but as unique individuals who are refreshingly genuine and uninhibited, have hopes, dreams and desires that we all share, and live lives that contradict the misconceptions most of us have about them. It would be fanciful to expect that this project alone will empower my disabled collaborators to become career actors or learn the skills to make their own movies: rather, I hope that this work will enable them to share their stories and allow me to make them accessible to lots and lots of people.

Whether or not the completed narrative actually reaches a wide audience should not be a measure of the project’s success or failure. Ultimately, my hope is that

8

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

this work -- the doing of the creative work and the analysis of the process – will allow filmmakers of the future to be better prepared, less daunted and ultimately more willing to tackle such projects and create more meaningful and constructive collaborations with disabled people. If this happens, complex and varied representations of disability will populate our screens, disabled and non-disabled filmmakers will collaborate often and disabled storytellers will eventually have the skills and expertise to go it alone if they choose.

1.4 RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Before this thesis was completed -- indeed, before a single frame of film or a single printed word had been publicly2 released -- there was a significant outcry for it to be stopped. This outcry was based on all that this project seeks to challenge: ignorance, prejudice, hatred and fear. This thesis will not be consumed by these things, nor will it treat them as irrelevant. More than anything, the criticisms, protests and attacks against this work have only confirmed its need to exist.

For purposes of research integrity, and for the benefit of filmmakers and researchers who pursue similar projects, I feel it necessary to briefly address the nature of the external agendas that sought to interfere with, and impact upon, this work.

2 According to clause 12.2 of appendix 9 of the QUT MOPP Doctor of Philosophy regulations (QUT 2007), a confirmation seminar at QUT is open to the public but there were no members of the general public at my seminar: only staff and students of the university.

9

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

1.5 OUTRAGE AND MISREPRESENTATION

The one-year milestone of a PhD at some Australian universities, including

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), is marked by a confirmation seminar. It is a requirement for students to present a report on the progress of their work to a scholarly forum of academics and students, to take questions, and to ultimately be judged by a panel on whether or not the project should continue.

My seminar occurred on March 20, 2007. I discussed the research project and showed approximately 15 minutes of unedited footage from the first filming trip to Boulia, in south-west Queensland, which had occurred some months earlier.

Two academics, Gary MacLennan and John Hookham, verbally objected to my research at the seminar. They made complaints to the university that my work was ‘unethical’ (Hookham 2007: np) and soon after published an article in The

Australian newspaper, which referred to my project as ‘amoral’, ‘unethical’ and

‘misanthropic trash’ (MacLennan and Hookham 2007: 33). Based on this article, and the misrepresentations within it, a groundswell of hysteria rose up around my unfinished project in the days, weeks and months that followed.

Members of the public called it ‘cruel and ignorant’ (Humphries 2007: np),

‘nastily exploitative’ (‘Miriam’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np), ‘inhuman and inhumane’ (‘T. Mikel Longbrake’, quoted in Lagan 2007: np) and ‘a sick joke’

(‘Dave’, quoted in Griffith 2007: np) that was ‘peddling the dehumanization of disabled men’ (‘Copeland’, quoted in Lagan 2007: np). Other bloggers compared

10

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

it to ‘creating comedy out of rape’ (‘deviantsod’, quoted in Strong 2007a) and said its ‘abuse of the disabled’ was ‘reminiscent of the Nazi era’ (‘catface’, quoted in

O'Reilly 2007: np). I was targeted personally for my ‘self-indulgence’ (‘Parents’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np), called a ‘fool’ (‘realworld’, quoted in MacLennan and Hookham 2007a: np) and a ‘coward’ (‘Carthage’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np), and I was verbally and physically assaulted by fellow students. One blogger hoped that I became disabled so I would ‘be in a position to test [my] theories from a closer personal perspective’ (‘iberia of Brisbane’, quoted in Livingston

2007: np). Another claimed that, had I lived in the USA, I would be arrested for

‘abuse, harassment and exploitation’ of the disabled (‘RW’, quoted in Lagan

2007: np). What was most disturbing about all of this, aside from its viciousness, was that not one of those who attacked the work had seen a single frame of my work or read one of the 54 pages of my confirmation document. They relied only on the false and misleading descriptions of MacLennan and Hookham (2007) and their own prejudices about disability.

1.6 ONGOING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For purposes of academic transparency and disclosure, it should be noted that I launched defamation proceedings against Hookham and MacLennan in the

Brisbane District Court in June 2009 (Court number 1672/09).

At the time of writing this thesis, those proceedings remain unresolved.

11

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

1.7 THESIS STRUCTURE

This thesis consists of two parts: a feature-length comedy film entitled Down

Under Mystery Tour, which comprises 75% of the work, and an exegetical analysis, which comprises 25%. Ideally, the film should be viewed before the reading of this exegesis but this is not mandatory: one is not required for the other to be understood or interpreted. Indeed, it is expected that many viewers of the film will not access this exegesis, particularly if it reaches wider audiences.

Similarly, I would hope that filmmakers pursuing work in this field might refer to the exegesis and the challenges discussed within it, regardless of whether they have seen the film or not.

1.8 THE CREATIVE WORK

The creative work, Down Under Mystery Tour, is a 70 minute fictional comedy film starring three men with intellectual disabilities in lead roles. Although this project was initially conceived as a television series, its format evolved and changed over the course of the research study, a process which will be discussed later in this exegesis.

1.9 THE EXEGESIS

The exegesis follows traditional doctoral approaches, proposing a research question, evaluating the field of study, designing appropriate research methods,

12

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

undertaking the production and reporting the findings. These elements will be addressed in five separate chapters.

In this introductory chapter, I have set out the purpose and background of the study, its key research questions and the structure of the project. In the second chapter, I undertake a comprehensive analysis of the previous work that has guided and informed this study, most notably the writings on disability representation, authorship, reaching audiences and the complexities of disability comedy. The third chapter outlines the methodological approach to the study, which is shaped by the problem-driven, experiential nature of practice-led research methods. Chapter four examines in detail the conceptual and production process undertaken in the completion of the creative work, with particular emphasis on the problems and challenges faced, and how these were overcome.

In the final chapter, the lessons of the journey are reviewed and summarised, and challenges for the future are proposed.

13

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

14

\

C HAPTER T WO: D ISABILITY ON SCREEN, NARRA TIVES, AUTHORSHIP AND COMEDY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

n order to understand the general failure of disabled voices to reach and I sustain the interest of mainstream audiences, this contextual review will examine the importance and relevance of representation, the types of disability representations that have gone before, how these have been received, and what approaches are available to broaden the variety of representations, their place within narratives and their appeal to audiences in the future.

In addition, this chapter will briefly consider the complexity and instability that comedy adds to a disability narrative and what implications this has for the makers of such films and television programs.

15

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

2.2 WHY ARE REPRESENTATIONS IMPORTANT?

The creative work of this thesis seeks, among other things, to challenge the misconceptions and narrow-minded attitudes people have about disability and to broaden the variety of representations of disability and the narratives within which they operate. But there’s no consensus among academics about whether representations in films and television programs have any effect on audiences.

On one hand are those who argue for the ‘effects model’, which believes representations directly impact people’s attitudes and beliefs (Gauntlett 1998: 1).

Supporters of this view claim ‘television can be expected to inform viewers, make issues more salient, change viewers’ attitudes, and possibly even affect their behaviour’ (Albertson and Lawrence 2009: 280). Recent research proposes that

‘long-term exposure to a consistent system of messages in the media leaves related images ‘top-of-mind’ in viewers and thus used in the formation of social judgments’ (Riddle 2007: 1). A significant amount of this research is grounded in cultivation theory, which argues that the media cultivates a collective consciousness (Gerbner 1969) through a repetitive and stable pattern of content over long periods of time (Shanahan & Morgan 1999). This ‘cultivation’ has been used to explain media violence effects and other effects of long-term exposure to non-violent media, such as the portrayals of ethnic minorities (Allen & Hatchett

1986). The work of Shrum and colleagues extends on the cultivation model, using cognitive theories to propose that ‘people make inferences from images and

16

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

events they see in the media and generalize about the prevalence or likelihood of those images and events occurring in the real world’ (Riddle 2007: 10).

Writers who support these propositions say films and television programs are powerful cultural tools that have traditionally had a negative impact on people’s views of disability, ‘perpetuat[ing] mainstream society’s regard for people with disabilities’ (Norden 1994: 1). They directly impact upon the lives of disabled people by reinforcing negative attitudes towards disabled people, whether by creating a sense of fear and loathing generated by the ‘monster’ stereotype or prejudicial and over-protective attitudes arising from representations of disabled people as helpless ‘victims’ (Hyler 1988, see also Barnes 1992, Dahl 1993: 75,

Rubenstein 1983, Nelson 2003: 176). Those who have limited exposure to people with disabilities draw their knowledge of disability from representations made at the movies and on television, regardless of the accuracy (Hahn 1988).

These images are significant in the formative years of childhood when ‘opinions and ideas are shaped’ (Preethi Manuel, quoted in Pointon 1997b: 58). The ‘sheer repetition’ of insensitive and negative representations of disabled people leads to a presumption in society that there’s something true about them (Wolfson and

Norden 2000: 292). This view says images can also have negative consequences for the disabled people themselves, their self-worth and identity: when disabled children are exposed to screen counterparts that are evil and monstrous, it ‘cannot contribute to a positive self-image’, nor can images of superhuman overcoming

17

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

give them comfort in their own limitations and ordinariness (Harnett 2000: 23, see also Althusser 1971).

But many writers reject such a model, claiming it is flawed by generalisations, contradictions and ‘murky data’ (Gauntlett 1998: 4). They say a simple physical equation between what is shown and how people think is not convincing (McKee

2003: 45) and that media effects research, particularly when it makes connections between violent content and behaviour, ‘has scarcely proven... quantifiable effects within the social world’ (Cronin 2009: 18). Cultivation theories are heavily criticised (Potter 1994) and have ‘serious shortcomings’, not least for the failings of many content analyses to adequately measure long-term effects (Riddle 2007:

6). Studies of the longevity of media effects have found that the effects of brief exposure disappear within short periods of time (Mutz and Reeves 2005, see also

Druckman and Nelson 2003). Furthermore, Shrum’s models address viewers’ beliefs about facts but do not attempt to explain attitude and value judgments because ‘the construction of values and attitudes is more long-term and constructed prior to judgment time’ (Riddle 2007: 10-11).

In disability circles, studies have demonstrated a low positive correlation between people’s attitudes to disability and the viewing of mainstream movies involving disability (Eichinger, Rizzo and Sirotnik 1992). While films might reflect widely- held social beliefs and values, there is no evidence that such imagery has a major

18

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

effect on the attitudes of people in their everyday lives and how they treat disabled people (Safran 1998a: 477).

Of course, this does not mean that representations of disabled people on screen have no connection whatsoever to the way disabled people are seen and treated in the world, and how they feel about themselves. Those who oppose the effects model do not claim representations play no part in ‘sense-making practices’

(McKee 2003: 45) but they prefer to talk about ‘influences and perceptions, rather than effects and behaviour’ (Gauntlett 1998: 8). While the effects model

‘assumes that the medium holds a singular message that will be carried unproblematically to the audience’ (7), the opposing view says the process of interpretation of a film or any text is ‘complex and unpredictable’: it draws on many things, including relevant knowledge, previous interpretations and ‘wider cultural codes’ (McKee 2003: 51). People’s views might by reinforced by film imagery, particularly repetitive imagery, but a conflict with ‘strongly-held beliefs’ and other sources of exposure will weaken such views (Dahl 1993: 75); ‘the potential of the mass media to create false impressions... is tempered by a tendency of the public to neglect the mass media in favour of other sources of understanding social reality’ (Howitt 1982: 179). Importantly, these sense- making practices, which can affect how we treat other people, and how other people value themselves, can be changed: it’s possible, these writers argue, to actively intervene in sense-making processes and attempt to change how people interpret texts (McKee 2003: 54-55).

19

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

From this perspective, screen representations of disability are indeed relevant to the lives of disabled people; actively building and improving the variety of what has been done can only ‘add to the number of different sense-making practices to which people might be exposed’ (54). To this end, traditions of representation in disability must be considered.

2.3 DISABILITY ON FILM AND TELEVISION

BY THE NUMBERS

There are thousands of characters with all sorts of disabilities in film and television (Wolfson and Norden 2000: 291), ranging from ‘handicapped horror monsters’ and ‘disabled war veterans’ to ‘crippled criminals... stuttering animated characters... and blind detectives’ (Longmore 1987: 65). The website Films involving disabilities (Greenhalgh 1994) lists more than 3,000 feature films which involve disability in one way or another. These are spread across 15 categories relating to genre, disability type and the importance and context within which the disability exists in the narrative.

Various quantitative analyses, particularly the work of Byrd and his colleagues

(Byrd and Pipes 1981, Byrd and Elliott 1985) have shown that the percentage of depictions of disability in films is significant (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992:

11). Representation is less frequent in television (Pointon 1997a: 58), with less than half of the depictions recorded in fictional programs compared to films

20

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 51), and some disabilities (ie. wheelchair-users) are portrayed more commonly than others (Morris 1996: 98, see also Sutherland

1997: 16). But disability studies commentators have traditionally been less interested in the percentages and proportions of disabled characters in films or the underlying reasons for their inclusion, focusing instead on the kinds of representations and their effect on both disabled and non-disabled people.

Researchers have published five key filmographies that focus on the quality of representation as well as analysing the brute statistical numbers (Safran 1998a).

These cover psychiatric disabilities (Fleming and Manvell 1985), sensory and physical disabilities (Norden 1994), deafness (Schuchman 1984), blindness

(Erikson and Wolfe 1985), and general disabilities (Klobas 1988). In addition,

The Broadcasting Research Unit in London analysed all disability on primetime television across four channels in Britain (ITV, BBC1, BBC2, Channel Four) over a six-week period from May 1988 and its analysis was both quantitative and qualitative (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 7). These and other writers focus on lists of ‘stereotypes’ and taxonomies of varying numbers of various numbers when discussing disability representation (Darke 1998: 181, see also Barnes 1992,

Wolfson and Norden 2000, Nelson 2003, Norden 1994, Shakespeare 1999 and

Klobas 1988) . Their lists of recurring disabled characters and narrative arcs can be best summarised under the three broad categories of ‘victim’, ‘monster’ and

‘hero’ (Shakespeare 1999: 164).

21

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

DISABLED PERSON AS ‘VICTIM’

The first of these broad categories, the disabled person as ‘victim’, most often portrays characters as innocent, tragic, pitiable and pathetic: they’re embittered individuals who must accept and overcome their disability (Longmore 1987: 69, see also Norden 1994: 3, Nelson 2003: 176-7, Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992,

Wolfson and Norden 2000: 292-3, Morris 1996: 102-3). This depiction relies on the presumption that disability is a loss of ‘one’s humanity’, a burden on society and a separation and exclusion from the community (Longmore 1987: 69, see also

Nelson 2003, Bogdan and Biklen 1977, Barnes 1992). It dismisses complex problems of ‘social stigma and discrimination’ in favour of ‘heroic overcoming’ of the individual through ‘emotional choices, courage and character’ (Longmore

1987: 72, see also Morris 1996: 101).

The narrative arcs of victim characters often involve their ‘rescue’ by the wise, strong, non-disabled person, who helps the disabled person come to terms ‘with their disability’ (Klobas in Morris 1996: 102), putting the responsibility and problem of the disability ‘squarely and almost exclusively on the disabled individual’ (Longmore 1987: 71). When sexuality is addressed, it predominantly characterises those with disabilities as dangerous sexual deviants, asexual or

‘sexually incapacitated’ (72). If they’re not physically incapable of a sexual relationship, they are not emotionally capable because of their own insecurities about themselves and their disability and often require convincing, usually from a

22

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

non-disabled person, that they can be a sexual being ‘despite’ their disability (73).

Films featuring characters with learning disabilities such as Forest Gump, The

Lawnmower Man, and Of Mice and Men present their protagonists as asexual,

‘incorruptible simpletons’, childlike fools whose appearance and naivete underpin their identities. They are the innocents in a strange and tainted world (Kimpton-

Nye 1997: 32).

Disabled lives are ‘not worth living’ (Morris 1996: 107) for many ‘victim’ characters and death is often the merciful and necessary outcome, a decision ultimately made by the disabled themselves who realise they are ‘better dead than disabled’ (Longmore 1987: 70, see also Nelson 2003: 179).

DISABLED PERSON AS ‘MONSTER’

The second broad category is the disabled person as monster, an evil, violent, sinister and subhuman creature that has been represented in cinema since its early days with the ‘freakish’, deformed characters played by Lon Chaney in horror films of the 1920s and Tod Browning’s Freaks in 1932 (Wolfson and Norden

2000: 292-3, see also Bogdan, Biklen, Shapiro and Spelkoman 1982). Evil villains like Captain Hook, Dr No and Dr Strangelove populate a long list of disabled characters that are most often feared, loathed, pitied and avoided (Nelson

2003: 175, see also Barnes 1992, Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992, Sontag 1978).

These and other ‘warped’ and threatening villains (Nelson 2003: 178) are

23

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

generally ‘crippled’ or deformed by their own doing (through ‘nefarious experiments’); they despise the world for the way they’ve turned out and seek vengeance through crime or destruction against the ‘normals’ who’ve escaped the afflictions they’ve suffered (Longmore 1987: 67). ‘Laughable’ characters who are objects of ridicule by the nature of their disability also fit within this category

(Barnes 1992, see also Wolfson and Norden 2000: 292-3).

Disabled characters portrayed as monsters ‘menace beautiful women who would ordinarily reject them’ while villainous disabled characters lust after ‘normal’ women with ‘kinky, leering’ desires (Longmore 1987: 72). Death, as in the case of the ‘victim’ character, is ultimately seen as the only possible solution to these narratives: in cases where the monster is despised, it is a death that is just and deserved punishment. When we pity and sympathise with the monster (which is rare), death is tragic, ‘inevitable and merciful’ but it allows us to escape the associated problems that have led to his social exclusion and what might and can still be done to redress these problems (69).

DISABLED PERSON AS ‘HERO’

The third common category of representation is the disabled person as ‘hero’.

The heroic disabled character is a wondrous ‘supercrip’ who triumphs over great odds with special gifts and powers (Nelson 2003: 177, see also Barnes 1992,

Thomson 2001). These characters are sometimes compensated for their ‘loss’

24

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

with ‘superhuman characteristics’ (Dahl 1993: 75), either literally (The Six

Million Dollar Man) or by way of natural intelligence (Ironside). Special gifts may be physical, spiritual, moral, mental or emotional but they often reflect an ability and willingness to cope with their affliction. Bitter, grumpy and self- pitying disabled people don’t get gifts until they ‘buck up’ and get over themselves (Longmore 1987: 71, see also Nelson 2003). Civilian superstars, techno marvels and high-tech gurus (Wolfson and Norden 2000: 292-3) fall into this category, as do ‘never-say-die types who accept disability as a physical challenge and go out to conquer the world’ (Klobas 1988: 1).

2.4 THE SEARCH FOR POSITIVE IMAGES

DOMINANT REPRESENTATIONS ARE ‘UNREALISTIC’

Researchers in disability imagery are largely unimpressed by the representations that fall into these three categories, claiming they are ‘crude, one-dimensional and simplistic’ and do not represent reality (Shakespeare 1999: 154). The dominant screen images ‘bear little resemblance to the actual experiences and lifestyles of people with disabilities’ (Wolfson and Norden 2000: 289, 295) and represent ‘an immense chasm’ between disabled people and their screen counterparts (Klobas

1988: xi, see also Norden 1994: 3). Disabled researcher Jenny Morris (1996) claims she could watch television and go to theatres for years, ‘possibly a lifetime’, without seeing her experience reflected on the screen: ‘the general

25

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

culture invalidates me both by ignoring me and by its particular representations of disability’ (84-5).

The majority of disability writers want more realistic images. This might seem like a commonsense position. But when we try to define what is ‘realistic’, we find that such a process is ‘fraught with danger’ (Pointon, 1997: 1) because unrealistic narratives to some are the lived experience of others. For Meekosha

(2000), the protagonist in the film Hilary and Jackie, though criticised by disability imagery writers as a stereotypically-negative portrayal of the disabled

‘victim’, was an accurate and affirming reflection of her own experience: ‘her struggle, her rage, her contempt, her inevitable death... engrossed me… finally, there, indeed, on the silver screen, was a woman like me…’ (814).

Many writers interchange ‘realistic images’ and ‘positive images’ as if they are the same. But this is not the case, as Meekosha’s example shows. There is considerable disagreement among disability researchers as to whose reality is

‘positive’ and should be represented: ‘victim’ representations like Meekosha’s are not positive to many but they are clearly realities for some.

POSITIVE EQUALS NORMAL…?

For many writers on disability imagery, positive images are those that treat the disability as a secondary characteristic that doesn’t define a person: ‘happen-to- be-disabled’ narratives (Morris 1996: 113). These portrayals show disabled

26

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

characters that are as close to ‘normal’ as possible, ‘attractive, active and with it’, involved and competitive, and experiencing ‘normal’ relationships’ (Longmore

1987: 78, see also Klobas 1988, Nelson 2003). Positive images are where disabled people show up as ‘normal people doing things that normal people do’

(Nelson 2003: 183).

There are two major oppositions to this view. The first comes from writers who challenge the defining of ‘normalcy’ and question who gets to make the definition: ‘if it’s hard to deny that something called normalcy exists, it’s even harder to pinpoint what that something is’ (McRuer 2006: 7).

The second argument comes from those who, assuming normalcy can be defined, challenge its validation as ‘the preferred way of life’ (Darke 1998: 183, see also

McRuer 2006). Images that position disabled people as needing and desiring normalcy is ‘the very illusion at the heart of the oppression of disabled people’

(Darke 1998: 183). To seek normal, sexually satisfying and attractive characters relegates those that can’t live up to that further ‘down the scale of acceptability’

(Darke 1999: 15). The ‘fantasy of normality’ (Darke 1998: 188-89) further marginalises disabled people because they’re not able in most circumstances to imitate the images of normalcy or ‘benefit from any attempt to normalise them’

(Darke 1999: 13). McRuer (2006) criticises what he calls the hegemonic mode of representation that ‘elicits consent to the dominant economic and political ideologies’ of the time (192) and sees oppression in ‘compulsory able-bodiedness’

27

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(198), a system that ‘able-bodied identities, able-bodied perspectives are preferable and what we all, collectively, are aiming for’ (9). Striving for normalcy, he believes, reflects one’s ability to participate in capitalism: ‘being able-bodied means being capable of the normal physical exertions required in a particular system of labour’ (8).

Rather than focusing on individual struggles for normalcy, some theorists want representations to draw attention to the social structures which problematise disability (Darke 1999). This argument aligns closely with a social model perspective of disability, which distinguishes between the biological reality of

‘impairment’ and the notion of ‘disability’; the latter is an environment of attitudes and institutional structures that can be acted on, changed and improved:

‘one may have an impairment but in the right setting and with the right aids and attitudes one may not be disabled by it’ (Pointon, 1997: 1). This view is in opposition to the medical model, which classifies disability as a biological fact, locating the problem within the individual and their impaired condition: ‘lacking part or all of a limb, or having a defective limb or organ or mechanism of the body’ (Oliver 1996: 22, see also Ellis 2007: 136). Disability studies has traditionally favoured the social model and rejected the medical model as wrong:

‘it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation’ (UPIAS 1976: 3).

28

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Darke (1998) believes the ‘victim’ narratives which emphasise an individual’s struggle to overcome their impairment can be classified in a genre of their own, which he terms ‘the normality genre’ (184). This genre subscribes to the medical model of disability, ignoring social elements of impairment and using traditional genre conventions to define and validate ‘normality’ (187). This is done by emphasising the tragic medical nature of the main character’s impairment and building the narrative around their struggle for normalcy, a much superior state of being that is represented by ‘ all the other ‘normal’ characters in the drama’ (188).

Darke wants representations to focus on society and the ‘realities of social integration’ (Darke, 1999: 13, see also Longmore 1987: 74-75).

But other writers sit somewhere between the models: they have a problem with representations that focus solely on society and ignore the impairment altogether, thereby lessening the complexity of a disabled person’s identity and creating a barrier to understanding the ‘diversity of the disability experience and the implication of impairment’ (Meekosha 2000: 814). Such a view aligns more closely with another approach to disability, one that wants to move away from a medical model versus social model perspective and take into account the distinction between what exists (‘ontology’) and our ideas about what exists

(‘epistemology’) (Shakespeare 2006: 55): ‘people are disabled by societies and their bodies’ (2, italics by author). Even if all social oppression and discrimination were removed, writers of this view claim people would still suffer with impairments. This model, the ‘critical realist’ approach, acknowledges that

29

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

there is a reality outside of language, outside of social construction – ‘the acceptance of an external reality… there are objects independent of knowledge’

(54). The critical realist acknowledges that bodies ‘sometimes hurt’ (55), they’re limiting and difficult (41), ‘regardless of what we think or say about them’ (55).

Other writers want to go further than merely acknowledging the existence of impairment in disabled identities: they want to celebrate it and draw attention to difference. McRuer (2006) likes self-proclaimed ‘supermasochist’ Bob Flanagan, a performer with cystic fibrosis whose aggressive, in-your-face onstage act includes nailing his penis to a wall (181, see also Thomson 2001). Flanagan’s

‘radical crip images’ (McRuer 2006: 182) on one hand give reassurance to those who are actually like him (‘Look at me: I am like you’) but add the contingency that he may not be ‘like you’ and, if so, he wants to imagine a future that ‘might be something other than, different from, or beyond all of this’ (183). Flanagan, like McRuer, questions what ‘normality’ really is, and if he’s deemed to be abnormal, he sees ‘cause for celebration’ in that fact (186). The images ascribed to Flanagan as a young poster boy of cystic fibrosis sought pity for the lack of a cure and his implied untimely death, and revelry in the ‘amazing things’ he could do because of treatment, ‘normal’ things like painting, sketching and playing drums (187). Flanagan’s adult reality exploded the poster child mythology and his ‘transgressive representation’ demonstrated and rejoiced in alternative ways of being and surviving (188, 191). According to McRuer, Flanagan’s counter-

30

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

hegemonic role ‘imagined crip existence as atypical and reached for something beyond the world order’ (194)

Similarly, Irish performance artist Mary Duffy, an armless woman with a hand attached directly to one shoulder, ‘exposes the body that has always been hidden, both shocking and compelling her viewers’ (Duffy, quoted in Thomson 2000:

335). Her naked performance on stage, accompanied by a soliloquy that explores the hateful and hurtful words she has encountered throughout her life, upsets the

‘dynamic of the stare’ by ‘repeating in a kind of testimony the words of her starers while forcing the audience to look at a classic image of female beauty bearing witness to its own enfreakment by those words’ (Thomson 2000: 337). Her representation of self poses any questions of ‘normality’: what is appropriate looking, what constitutes beauty and what is the truth of the body? (338).

There are many other works that confront and challenge notions of positive and realistic representations, including John Callahan’s animated TV series Quads, a

‘scathing, funny account of a quadriplegic’s life’ (Cosh 2001: 5), the ‘part- documentary, part concert film, part traditional filmed comedy’ F**k the

Disabled, which features gay, disabled comedian Greg Walloch (Carter-Long

2010) and various films such as Goodbye CP, a ‘relentlessly honest documentary’ that follows a Japanese man with cerebral palsy on the streets of Japan (Erickson

2007), and My One Legged Dream Lover, an Australian documentary about amputee fetish featuring disabled performer Kath Duncan.

31

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

POSITIVE + REALISTIC + NORMAL = INDEFINABLE

These opposing views of what represents ‘realistic’, ‘positive’ and ‘normal’ depictions of disability point to what many researchers have written: it’s not possible to agree on what a true representation is because there’s ‘no universally true way anything can be represented’ (Darke 1998: 183, see also McKee 2000:

424, Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 57).

There are two alternative responses to this proposition. The first is for writers on disability imagery to take a more objective, balanced and sophisticated view of representations. Writers of this view argue that the tendency to slot representations into ‘stereotypical categories’, as most of the taxonomical filmography analyses do, fails to recognise the differences between them. If we are to draw attention to traditions of representation, we must also ‘attend to the specificity of representations’ and look beyond labels that presume an identity but deny an individuality (McKee 2000: 425). Shakespeare (1999) favours an approach that looks beyond sweeping, superficial generalisations about representations. He believes the simplistic readings of ‘disability correctness’ limit artistic creativity, ignore valid alternate readings and serve only to be prescriptive and censorious (170). He wants writers on disability imagery to objectively engage with what a filmmaker is trying to do, judge the film’s strength and weaknesses across all elements and critique whether there they succeeded and where they have failed (171). A more sophisticated approach takes in the analysis

32

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

and criticism of narratives, giving due attention to the filmmaker’s intentions, and a ‘balanced appraisal of the outcome’, which considers subtleties, metaphors and non-realist symbolism (165).

The second response to is to seek a ‘greater variety of representations’ (McKee

2000: 424): ‘the only thing you can do to give the community a fair representation of itself is to provide a range of programmes... it's about volume and it's about range... it's having enough types of programmes to really accurately reflect the range of experiences inside a community’ (‘Executive Producer’ in Cottle 1998:

305) .

However, as Cottle’s (1997, 1998) work demonstrates, achieving such a range of representations is not unproblematic. His study of ethnic minorities and the BBC found that representations of race were largely informed by cultural politics, institutional context and the ‘professional pragmatics of programme production’

(1998: 297). The decision-making of producers within the BBC’s multicultural unit were inevitably framed by the need to safeguard their ‘personal survival and career prospects’ (302). This meant there was a tension between producers wanting to create innovative and challenging programs for minorities (and providing content with a ‘distinctive voice’) and their need to protect and enhance their careers by being seen to create ‘high profile’ and ‘mainstream’ programmes, a tension exacerbated by a ‘professional abhorrence of the stigma attached to

‘ghetto programming’’ and its associated low-quality, small-audience reputation

33

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(304). In addition, decisions made by producers about what representations to include were often subject to institutional conservatism and ‘cultural-political’ positions, including concerns about how certain content would be received by various communities. Ultimately this would result in program designs and representations that ‘denie[d] support to popular racist myths’ (308), which raises the inevitable question: who gets to decide which representation is a myth?.

Many writers insist that the only way to avoid these problems, and achieve an appropriate range and variety of representations, is to give full control of the representations to disabled people themselves. Writers of this view want disabled people in front of and behind the camera (Beatson 1996: 88).

2.5 AUTHORSHIP: WHO’S IN CHARGE OF THE

REP RESENTATIONS?

DISABLED ACTORS, NOT ‘DISABLED- FACE’

For many writers, improving disability representations on screen means ensuring disabled actors play disabled characters. Writers of this view argue that it is a

‘moral outrage’ (Whittington-Walsh 2002: 696) that the majority of disability portrayals are played by non-disabled actors (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992:

115). This position compares the use of non-disabled actors to white actors getting ‘blacked up’ to play black roles (Harnett 2000: 27; see also Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992, Lynch 1997).

34

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Opposing this view are those who say acting is ‘all about pretence’ and it is therefore ‘quite logical’ that such pretence be extended to non-disabled actors playing wheelchair users, people with cerebral palsy, blindness and all manner of disabilities (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 115): you don’t have to ‘actually kill someone’ to play a murderer (Lynch 1997: 127). While some say real disabled people add ‘authenticity’ for viewers (Beatson 1996: 88), others are not convinced that disabled people have an exclusive insight into disability: a non-disabled actor has the ability to connect with individual experiences of marginalisation, disempowerment and prejudice (Shakespeare 2006: 196).

The argument from within the film and television industries tends to be an economic one: while most producers and writers would generally prefer that disabled characters are played by disabled actors, the ‘odds are stacked’ against such decisions, including access to studios, the availability of suitable actors, and opportunities for training and experience (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 115, see also Morris 1996: 112). At the heart of the debate is the ability of disabled actors to obtain the necessary training and experience to be suitable and able to act

(or make films): without that step, ‘it will always be possible for producers to claim that there is no suitable candidate’ (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 116).

Producer David Puttnam (quoted in Davies 1997a: 54) cites two ‘undeniable realities’ when dealing with disabled actors in film: major films seek known actors for the purposes of risk minimisation and commercial gain, precluding the severely disabled and; film shoots are intense and laboured processes that require

35

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

stamina and it’s unlikely an insurance company would approve a disabled actor if the risk is too great. Right or wrong, Puttnam believes these realities are the way the industry works: ‘it’s very doubtful that an industry such as the film business would be likely to adapt itself in any way that would be specifically helpful’ (54, see also Pointon 1997a: 112).

Others within the film industry take a simplistic, almost tokenistic approach to getting actors of minority groups on screen: they say it’s ‘relatively easy’ to include minorities by ‘just writ[ing] them in’ (Seger 1990: 200): ‘instead of being general or leaving it up to the vagaries of the casting director, I’ll specify that the school is made up of Asians or blacks and whites. Or I might mention the

Hispanic Judge, the Black Engineer or the Asian anchorwoman’ (Shelly List, head writer of Cagney and Lacey, quoted in Seger 1990: 201).

DISABLED ACTORS TURN AUDIENCES OFF

But some writers argue that even when filmmakers have used disabled actors, audiences were not able to cope with seeing actual disabled people on screen

(Whittington-Walsh 2002: 697). Tod Browning’s Freaks, considered the first film to ‘assemble a full cast of real disabled people’ and expose audiences to their

‘normal sensual desires’ (Larsen and Haller 2002: 165) was a box office disaster, drew many highly negative reviews, prompted calls by civic groups for increased censorship and was banned in the UK for 40 years (Norden and Cahill 1998: 89).

36

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Some claim it offended audiences and many in the disability community because it introduced body shapes that were real rather than ‘made up’ and that was not something they could cope with: ‘arresting images of real death and deformity offer moviegoers an emotional, experiential and visceral state of vivification’

(Nichols in Larsen and Haller 2002: 168). Audiences experienced an overriding reaction of revulsion, disgust and ‘repulsion from the physical difference pictured’; they were jarred with aesthetic anxiety, the fear caused by ‘someone who diverges from the typical human form’ (Hanoch Linveh, quoted in Larsen and Haller 2002: 169). The prevailing culture was ‘not yet ready’ to consider disabled people as fully and equally human with sexual desires, eating, proposing marriage, joking and even giving birth (170, 164). What shocked and offended critics and audiences alike was ‘the visibility of actors with disabilities’ and the fact that Browning and his actors ‘found no shame in showcasing their diversity’

(Whittington-Walsh 2002: 696).

Whittington-Walsh (2002) claims the film’s failure, and the audience’s inability to cope with the real actors, mirrored what the closing of the real freak shows had done at the turn of the century; further isolating disabled performers from society and from the economy, because real actors could and did now play them in the cinematic equivalent of their ‘freak shows’ . The arguments that had accused freak shows of exploitations ultimately led to the withdrawal of their living and many spent ‘the rest of their lives in real horror houses – custodial institutions’

(697).

37

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

IN FRONT AND BEHIND: DISABLED PEOPLE AS

CREA TORS OF CONTENT

But the majority of disability researchers who condemn Freaks do not blame its rejection by audiences on the inclusion of real disabled actors: their focus is on the content of the narrative and the creators’ ‘tasteless’ and exploitative marketing campaign, which carried slogans such as ‘Can a grown woman truly love a midget?’ (Larsen and Haller 2002: 167) and promoted its stars as ‘humans and half-humans’ (Norden and Cahill 1998: 88). They and other writers want more than the inclusion of disabled actors: they want disabled people to have full control of the creative content and how they are represented, content made ‘by them’ and ‘not on their behalf’ (Beatson 1996: 88).

According to this view, only when disabled people make the films and programs themselves can we escape the ‘dead weight’ of the misrepresentations of the past and create ‘real, interesting disabled characters and fresh, exciting stories about disability’ (Sutherland 1997: 20, see also Safran 1998a: 477). Writers in this tradition claim it’s possible for non-disabled filmmakers to have insights into disability but they are more likely than not to ‘warp the images to fit preconceived notions’ (Wolfson and Norden 2000: 297). For Gill (quoted in Shakespeare

2006), the trappings of disability grant membership to an exclusive, inescapable club: ‘Non-disabled people, no matter how much they love us, do not know the inside experience of being disabled. Moreover they are in a position to escape the

38

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

stigma’. This view, particularly in disability arts, advocates and celebrates ‘the notion of a distinct disability culture’ (185) and echoes Charlton’s (1998) concept of ‘nothing about us without us’ (4, see also Shakespeare 2006: 185, Jaeger and

Bowman 2005:111).

An approach which relies on improved representations from disabled authors presumes that authorial control, whether as director, writer or producer, will necessarily produce a different text. It implies that a disabled creator will have full control of the meaning of the text he creates and the representations he makes within it. This view has long been discredited: ‘a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination’ (Barthes 1996: 213). The reader is the interpreter of a film’s meaning, not its author.

For this reason and others, Darke (1997: 14) rejects the idea that disabled people will necessarily do a better job of representing themselves as creators of programs. Firstly, some of the so-called ‘negative’ representations perpetrated by non-disabled film and program makers are a real, lived existence for many disabled people. If they were to tell their own stories on screen, it’s unlikely their representations would differ significantly from those of non-disabled storytellers

(Sutherland 1997: 14). Secondly, disabled people are as ‘equally socialised’ as non-disabled people to see disability as a negative, individualised problem which centres around personal tragedy and triumph. Such narratives, which reduce

39

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

broader complex social problems to simplistic and easily-solvable personal journeys, already dominate disability narratives (20).

Other writers argue that letting disabled people make the shows themselves is problematic because they make shows that don’t reach wide audiences: they either completely exclude non-disabled people or the content is unappealing to the mainstream because it lacks quality or suffers from ‘the burden of representation’.

This ‘burden’, initially used to describe the situation of black filmmakers who were confronted with few opportunities to make films, refers to the need to

‘counter mainstream interests’ and represent minority issues and viewpoints at

‘each and every opportunity’ (Cottle 1998: 306, see also Hall 1988, Mercer 1994,

Ross 1996). This often results in works that are ‘creatively constrain[ed]’,

‘ideologically busy’ and widely inaccessible (306). The information program

Link, which ran for more than five years on the ATV network in Britain, is regarded as being the ‘first dedicated disability programme’ with disabled creators and presenters (Davies 1997: 65). Davies claims that Link’s problem, and ultimate failure, was that it refused to ‘concede to a non-disabled viewership’:

‘they [made] no bones about the fact that it waste[d] no time giving explanations that would make the programme more accessible for non-disabled people’ (65).

But Davies wants to assign blame to the broadcaster for the show’s demise and the failure of its successor One In Four, which tried hard to reach a wider, non- disabled audience: both shows, he claims, were ‘marginalised in the schedules’

40

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

and it was a ‘minor miracle’ if they ‘got any consistent audience at all’ (Davies

1997: 66-67). This argument presumes that better placement in the schedule (ie. prime time) by the broadcaster might have attracted audiences (the non-disabled included) and, by extension, the shows’ ongoing success. According to McKee

(2004), such an argument presumes that the ‘passive masses’ will ‘watch what they’re given’ (86). The view of some writers suggests that if programs about disability by disabled people were forced on primetime audiences, they would watch them without question. But McKee, referring to empirical research, suggests this is not the case: popular audiences ‘do not passively accept what they’re given’ (87). They’re ‘fickle’ (McIntyre 2003: 11), ‘relentlessly critical’

(McNair 2000: 156) and ‘will stop buying a newspaper if they don’t like its content’ (18, 44, 151). The failure of disability programs to reach audiences is not the fault of broadcasters or the scheduling: for McKee and others, the reality is that audiences aren’t watching because they don’t like the content.

Some argue that societal and institutional barriers restrict the opportunities for disabled people to work only on ‘specialist’ disability programs: they are disadvantaged by ‘poor training’ (Mulhern 1997: 130) and are not given the experience required to tell engaging screen stories for the mainstream (Pointon

1997a: 110-12). This argument is used for marginalised, under-qualified disabled actors (Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 117, see also Morris 1996: 112) and it is a circle which many consider ‘vicious and closed’ (Cumberbatch and Negrine

1992: 117): disabled actors and program creators can only improve with

41

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

experience but they need experience to be given the opportunities. Those who seek an exclusively disabled approach (Sutherland 1997: 20) make this an even greater challenge: it would be unrealistic to expect that the relevant training and experience that’s needed could come from anywhere but the non-disabled community.

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH: NOT ‘US’ AND ‘THEM’

What’s needed, many argue, is a collaborative approach, ‘partnership and alliance’ between disabled people and non-disabled people (Shakespeare 2006:

187). Weinberg (quoted in Wolfson and Norden 2000) says ‘continued intermingling’ between the groups has the effect of minimalising the perceived differences between them and diminishing the stereotype of ‘disabled as different’

(299). Representation has improved over time as a result of ‘the increasing level of social interaction among people with disabilities and able-bodied people’ (299).

Principles of emancipatory research, ‘a form of research in which disabled people are empowered’ (Barton 2005: 318) have relevance here. Although it is broadly defined as research that ‘should be controlled by disabled people as part of a broader process of empowerment’ (Zarb 1992: 51), it is seen by many writers as a process which empowers disabled people by ‘using the knowledge and expertise of the researcher towards this end’ (Barton 2005: 318) and aims to have disabled

42

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

people and researchers ‘use their expertise and skills in a common cause’ (Oliver

1997: 102).

Shakespeare (2006) supports the broad principle of emancipatory approaches and welcomes the notion of putting disabled people at the ‘centre of analysis’ but he has problems with what he sees as a ‘writing out of non-disabled people’ (186).

This is because it presumes disabled people exist ‘in a vacuum’ and diminishes the multi-layered connection between disabled and non-disabled people: (a) disability is permeable in that it can happen to a non-disabled person at any stage of their lives, and it is possible in some circumstances for a disabled person to overcome their disability and live as a non-disabled person (something that can’t be said of ethnic and gender groups); (b) impairment and disability is only part of the identity of a person and may not be the ‘dominant factor in their lives’; they may identify and affiliate with other aspects of their identity (ie. sexuality, religion) above their disability; (c) non-disabled people are ‘a necessary and desirable’ part of the lives of most disabled people, whether they are parents, workmates, friends or siblings: ‘only the most separatist disabled activist chooses to socialise or work exclusively with other disabled people’ (186).

Shakespeare (2006) wants to move beyond ‘the suspicion of non-disabled researchers’ by recognising that having a disability doesn’t necessarily equate to

‘automatic insight’ into disability: indeed, one person’s lived experience ‘may actively mislead them to the nature of disability’ (195). The diversity of disability

43

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

types (‘someone with one impairment may have as little insight into someone else’s impairment as a person without any impairment’), the skills and knowledge of experienced researchers, and the ability to connect with individual experiences of marginalisation, disempowerment and prejudice means non-disabled researchers have as much to offer and do: their contribution has helped develop disability studies to ‘the status it currently enjoys’ (196).

Other disability writers support this view, seeking ‘new traditions of inclusive research’ (Dowse 2009: 150). They reject the broad assumptions that non- disabled researchers and disabled people are ‘oppositional, homogenous and unequal groups’ and claim an ‘us and them’ approach has limited both

‘researcher’ and ‘researched’ in intellectual disability research (150). They emphasise a merging of skills, mutuality and collaboration that promise ‘new forms of co-produced social knowledge’ (151), highlighting ‘the importance of listening, acknowledgement and collaboration’ in the seeking of voice and representation (Goggin 2009: 11).

Such collaboration has occurred in Australian film, most notably with Dance Me to My Song, which starred and was co-written by disabled performer Heather

Rose. Working with celebrated (and non-disabled) Australian filmmaker Rolf de

Heer, Rose played ‘in-front and behind camera roles’ and had ‘some creative control’ (Duncan, Goggin et al. 2005: 157). The resulting film is confronting and

‘demystifying’, ‘systematically dismant[ling]’ traditional images of disability

44

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(156). But such representations and collaborations are ‘rarities in Australian cinema’ (158). Indeed, there remains a ‘yearning’ for a time when ‘disability is not just central to Australian film but every aspect of Australian film incorporates the expertise of Australians with disabilities’ (Goggin and Newell 2003: np).

While this project shares elements of this yearning, it is acutely aware of the complexities and practicalities of the filmmaking process and the need for people of all abilities to contribute to all aspects of the process.

Although he focuses on biographical narratives, the work of Booth (1996) is particularly relevant in this regard for its discussion of storytelling collaboration between writer/researchers and intellectually-disabled subjects. He suggests collaboration requires, and often demands, that a skilled storyteller (whether they’re disabled or not) use tools of manipulation and construction to tell the best possible story and reach the widest possible audience. Although he refers to printed texts in the form of biographical accounts, his work has relevance for all narratives, including films and television programs. He sees no problem with a level of manipulation to effectively tell the stories of those who can’t: people who have learning difficulties and have difficulties in communicating these stories.

Indeed, he believes the narratives of people’s lives should be absorbing and readable, drawing readers in on an emotional and intellectual level: if they’re not, they’ve failed their subjects. Narrative researchers, novelists and filmmakers who

‘cannot take the reader with them are wasting their time’ (252).

45

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Cutting, pasting, excising repetitions, and selecting some elements over others serve to ‘form a coherent narrative’, develop plot and theme, clarify sense and improve readability. Lack of verbal fluency, vocabulary, and literal modes of expression require an editor to ‘play a fuller part’ in transforming stories to text

(242). A lack of editing and manipulation can sometimes do a disservice to intellectually-disabled people: while the first duty is to ‘preserve the message the words convey’, reprinting the exact words of a subject may do a ‘gross disservice’ to that subject, particularly if their illucidity does not reflect that which it would be given normal, everyday circumstances (without the pressure of an interview, film cameras, and lights) (251).

This transforming process invokes new challenges: there’s a tension between the integrity and honesty of the data and the intelligibility and readability of the text: editing, whether in a book or on film, is ‘a process of interpretation’ (244), imposing a subjective analysis on the subject’s raw data. A ‘rapporteur’s hand’ is invariably present in the stories of intellectually-disabled people: ‘there are very few unadorned accounts of their lives’ (245). What becomes the issue then is the extent of intrusion: from a contribution that does not alter the text (amanuensis) to one that adds its own construction to the story as told (interpreter) to one that writes about the lives of others in the third person (biographer) (245).

Narrative research and construction with intellectually-disabled people is ‘a collaborative venture’ (245) and the contribution of filmmaker and subject may be

46

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

difficult to disentangle: the subject tells their story while the filmmaker uses the

‘tools of the dramatist’ (250) -- elicits the material, edits it, interprets it and converts it into readable, coherent text (245). It’s a collaboration that can come unstuck, particularly if a researcher imposes his own preconceptions on the data and seeks only to fit the narrative to a predetermined outcome.

STABLE READINGS STILL RELY ON WHO’S SPEAKING

The collaborative approaches as proposed by Booth and others require renewed attention to issues of authorship. Even though minority groups may not produce different texts and it is the reader who is empowered to find meaning, authorship still matters: the reader interprets texts differently depending on who wrote them.

So the author may no longer be the ‘originator of all meaning in a text’ (McKee

1996: 196) but it still matters who speaks: ‘if a text is produced by an Aboriginal agent, it is open to a set of readings markedly different to those employed when an

‘Aboriginal’ text is produced by a white author’ (McKee 1996a:46).

The author’s name is a ‘not simply an element of speech’; it serves to stabilise meaning in a text by grouping texts together , differentiating them from one another, defining their form and ‘characterising their mode of existence’ (Foucault

1996: 284). Meaning is located in the ‘historical, flesh-and-blood person of the author’ (Medhurst 1991: 205) by way of their status as a legitimate creative author and an ‘oeuvre of publicly-circulated texts’ (McKee 1996: 196). But, while there

47

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

is ‘a realistic dimension’ (Foucault 1996: 286) to the rational entity we call author, it need not represent actual reality to be meaningful: how an author is constructed relies on ‘projections’; ‘comparisons we make’, ‘continuities we assign’ and the traits we extract or exclude (286). Markedly different readings of a text are possible depending on the ‘perceived authorship’ (McKee 1996a:13), who the audience thinks authored the text. If there is collaboration and multiple authors, the question becomes not who is actually speaking, but who will be perceived to be speaking by an audience and how can one interpretation be promoted over another to stabilise the meaning as intended?

Authorship issues are significant in determining how a film, and the representations within it, will be interpreted by an audience. But such issues mean very little if there is no-one watching in the first place. Much of the research in disability imagery does not consider the practicalities of finding and engaging with the widest possible audience, particularly those writers who want disabled people to take complete control of their images.

2.6 REACHING AUDIENCES

THE CLASSIC NARRATIVE APPROACH

The key writers on screen narratives generally agree that reaching the widest possible audience means subscribing to the classic Hollywood narrative approach, a set of formulated rules of structure, character arcs and goal-orientated plots.

48

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Writers of this view prioritise the audience in the formation of their story approach: the audience is ‘as determining a force’ as any other element and it’s impossible to make a film that works without understanding their anticipations and reactions (McKee 1998: 8). Putting this into a more practical economic context, Maltby (2003) says the classical approach seeks ‘the maximum pleasure for the maximum number to ensure a maximum profit’ (2003: 60). The mode of storytelling through ‘shape, rhythm and segmentation’ and the employment of narrative strategies aim to continually engage ‘the audience’s interest – and especially – their emotions’ (60).

Theories about narrative structure have their foundations in the early works of

Propp, Levi-Strauss and Barthes. Barthes proposed that narratives consist of interweaving codes or voices that link the reader and writer. These codes – hermeneutic, proairtic, semic, symbolic and referential – motivate closure, create binary oppositions, and build familiarity, intertextuality and the sharing of cultural knowledge (Zeltner 1993). For some, narrative is determined solely by culture:

‘the patterns of narrative are already there in the culture, the writer follows them unconsciously’ (Bywater and Sobchack 1989: 176). Others prefer a more strictly- defined form, ‘governed by specific rules and strategies that organise the story elements into a logical sequence’ (O'Sullivan, O’Saunders and Fiske, quoted in

Porter et al. 2002: 24).

49

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Chatman (1978) distinguishes between two categories in his approach to narrative: story, the actions, happenings, characters and setting, and discourse, which is ‘the expression, the means by which the story is presented’ (19). These distinctions extend upon earlier concepts of ‘syuzhet’ and ‘fabula’, which are central to narrative theory (Zeltner 1993: 10). The syuzhet is the structured set of causal events ‘as we see and hear them presented in a film itself’ (10) while the fabula is the chronological, causally-linked narrative constructed by audiences

(Bordwell 1985). A story or syuzhet can be presented in any order, using flashbacks or flashforwards, showing only some things and not others, and starting and ending when it chooses, but viewers will mentally construct the fabula: ‘the process whereby the syuzhet presents and withholds fabula information in a certain order is narration’ (Thompson 1988: 41). This approach implies that, regardless of how it is presented to us, narrative inherently has a linear, causal structure.

The classic Hollywood narrative approach is built around such a structure, traditionally in three acts: a beginning, middle and end (Aristotle 1974: 232, see also Field 2003: 11, 15, Douglass 1996: 48, Smith 1999: 88). It has active, individual protagonists whose ‘desires’ gets the story moving, their motivation is

‘clear and as complete as possible’, their actions create a continuous chain of cause-and-effect, obstacles are external and increasingly threatening, and there is a strong degree of closure at the end, where the protagonists win their reward and

50

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

return home with their ‘elixir’ and the ‘freedom to live’ (Vogler 1999: 12, see also

Bordwell 1997: 109-10, McKee 1998: 45, Field 2003: 11, 15, Hauge 1988: 3).

FORM OR FORMULAIC?

Some writers do not subscribe to the classical Hollywood approach to storytelling.

They believe that art, like life, is ‘nothing more than several individual moments suspended in some giant middle, with no beginning and no end’ (Field 2003: 16,

17). They reject notions of rules, principles, guidelines and patterns that tell them how they should write: ‘art is an intuitive process that can never be mastered by rules of thumb and should not be reduced to formula’ (Vogler 1999: xiii).

These writers want to broaden the argument to one between commercialism and art, aligning the classical model with the commercial Hollywood blockbuster machine, and making sweeping generalisations about their methods of manipulating audiences. To them, followers of classical form, indeed any form, are ‘like inventors who devise a contrivance for our diversion: when we push a button, lights flash, bells ring and cardboard figures move jerkily across painted horizon’ (Arp and Johnson 2009: 5). They’re ‘full of tricks and surprises’ and don’t carefully shape their materials like literary, artistic creatives, who by contrast take us into the midst of life and say ‘Look, here is the world in all its complexity’’ (5).

51

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Those who support classical form reject these criticisms on several fronts. Firstly, artists who refuse all models, rules and principles are ultimately subscribing to the principle of rejecting them: ‘difference for the sake of difference is as empty an achievement as slavishly following the commercial imperative’ (McKee 1998:

66).

Secondly, they are motivated by their own reasons of self-fulfilment and neglect the needs of audiences, who are often alienated because they cannot relate to

‘totally unconventional art’ (Vogler 1999: xiv). Writers and creators of film and television narratives cannot expect to make a career or reach audiences if they don’t write and make movies that ‘people want to see’ (Hauge 1988: 35); movies that ‘fit the paradigm’ (Field 2003: 11, 15).

And thirdly, and most importantly, the use of classical form does not necessarily negate meaningful, innovative and original artworks: ‘it’s intellectual hogwash to maintain that any original or meaningful movie must be obscure, subtitled or a financial failure’ (Hauge 1988: 35). The classical approach is a form, ‘not a formula’ (Field 2003: 16): thoughtless, overly-conventional and ‘cookie-cutter’ approaches are not what supporters of classical form seek, nor do they believe that audiences will necessarily be reached by them (Vogler 1999: xv). While they admit it is not the only approach to constructing narrative -- it is ‘one system among many’ (Bordwell and Thompson 1997: 110) -- they nevertheless maintain it rules supreme when it comes to reaching audiences: ‘the ideal American film

52

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

still centers around a well-structured carefully motivated series of events that the spectator can comprehend relatively easily’ (Thompson 1999: 8). When plots drift away from classical design to minimalism, which has a passive protagonist, open endings, internal conflicts and multi-protagonists; and anti-structure, which rely on non-linear, coincidental narratives that deal in ‘inconsistent realities’

(McKee 1998: 45), the ‘audience shrinks’ (62).

2.7 TACKLING COMEDY: NOW IT GETS SERIOUS

Reaching audiences and representing disability are both highly challenging aspects in the creation and production of film and television narratives. But when the genre of comedy is introduced to these narratives, they become even more problematic. While some of the issues are the same, comedy functions very differently to other genres and can add layers of complexity, instability and ambivalence to its intended meaning.

There is a long tradition of theorising about comedy, dating back thousands of years and beyond the scope and length of this thesis. While there are many differing styles, types and categories of comedy (from farce, irony and wit to satire, slapstick and parody), and no successful ‘totalising theory’ of what comedy is (Horton 1991: 2), this study will limit its focus here to the distinction between two broad traditions: Aristophanic and Shakespearean comedy. The Aristophanic tradition is argumentative, intellectual and determined to convince its audience of

53

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

an agenda, ‘a social, political and intellectual pointed form of comedy’, while the

Shakespearean tradition is ‘a romantic, emotional and relational form of comedy’, one that seeks to give rein to humour in every dramatic situation (Horton 1991:

10, see also Fry 1968, Merchant 1972).

Some writers favour the latter in discourses of comedy and comic narratives, believing the essential ingredient to all comedy is that it is funny. They claim a text’s comic purity is measured by the audience’s physiological response:

‘laughter settles everything’. If people don’t laugh, you’ve not written a comedy;

‘you’ve written… something else’ (McKee 1998: 362). But others tend towards an Aristophanic view, believing comedy is more than just a series of jokes or gags. For them, comedy is about being political, subversive and empowering others (Wagg 1998, see also Berger 1993, Littlewood and Pickering 1998).

The distinction between these traditions is significant for disability comedy in terms of its intention, purpose and worth; how it is received, perceived and understood by audiences; and how it might best be approached by the makers of comedy narratives.

COMEDY ABOUT DISABILITY ISN’T FUNNY

Comedy and disability is an uneasy combination for many writers, particularly when it appears driven by Shakespearean motivations. Jokes about disabled people are often seen as ‘mean-spirited’ and denigrating, they flaunt ‘a callous

54

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

insensitivity to human tragedy and suffering’ (Littlewood and Pickering 1998:

292) and provoke anger, hatred and fear against those who instigate them

(Albrecht 1999: 67).

Historically, comedy has been at the expense of people with disabilities. In ancient times, wealthy Romans and Greeks kept ‘abnormal’ people in their homes as objects of ridicule; in the middle ages, disabled people were exhibited at fairs; and, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, asylums across Europe ‘[opened] their doors to the general public so the people could actually come in and laugh at people with mental health problems’ (Barnes 1992: 14). Jestbooks and

Elizabethan texts from mid-eighteenth century England are ‘filled with jokes about cripples, dwarfs and hunchbacks’ (Simon Dickie quoted in Lund 2005: 92).

The English had a tradition of laughing at deformities and handicaps with a ‘sheer callousness’ and a ‘frank delight in human suffering’ (92).

Writers on disability imagery claim comic representations of disability in film and television have continued this tradition, portraying disabled people as laughable monsters, comic misadventurers, hilarious supercrips and comic foils ‘who inadvertently cause trouble for themselves and others’ (Norden 1994: 3, see also

Wolfson and Norden 2000: 292-3, Barnes 1992). They claim disabled people are often depicted as dim-witted clowns ‘who blunder into situations quite outside

[their] scope’ (Enright 2002: 134) or mentally-handicapped individuals whose

55

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

‘innocent antics’ keep the comic action going or provide relief from building tension (Dobson et al 2001: 148).

But those who support and celebrate disability comedy prefer to engage with its

Aristophanic qualities, emphasising its ability to raise political awareness, subvert preconceived notions and empower disabled voices.

They say it can be insightful and beneficial to society, raising awareness and increasing sensitivity about the oppression of disabled people (Smith and Sapon-

Shevin 2008-9: 2). The vehicle of comedy creates accessibility and understanding, and its vicarious nature ‘has the potential to change attitudes and behaviour’ (Albrecht 1999: 67, 73). Comedy about disability can build group solidarity and give context and insight into the lived experience of disabled people

(Gill 1991). When depicted as a ‘trickster’ character, the disabled person wanders on the edge of the community, ‘straddles the borders between one culture and another’, facing the monstrous and ‘transforming the chaotic to create new worlds and cultures’ (Albrecht 1999: 70). They provide insight and illuminate the differences and difficulties between the world they transgress, challenging ‘the status quo’ and disrupting ‘perceived boundaries’ (Smith 1997: 2).

Other writers point to the subversive power of comedy, which works by

‘disturbing, by turning inside out, notions and shibboleths’, delivering an unexpected take on that which we normally take for granted. They say it challenges us to laugh at the seriousness with which we take our own ‘codes,

56

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

precepts, values and beliefs’ (Littlewood and Pickering 1998: 291-92). Comedy turns on those things we consider ethically correct or socially respectable, sometimes ‘fly[ing] in the face of compassion, grief and outrage’ (292). In this context it can raise and expose ‘powerful social and political ideas’, assuming, undermining and challenging contemporary issues (Wagg 1998: xii).

In the hands of those on the margins, some argue that comedy can also be empowering and ‘emancipating’ (Albrecht 1999: 67). Minorities and persecuted groups use humour as an ‘effective means of countering and dealing with the difficulties they have faced in trying to live in societies which have frequently been very hostile’ (Berger 1993:4). African-American women have historically used humour, particular stand-up comedy, to ‘assuage painful experience’ (Fulton

2004: 81).

COMEDY REQUIRES COMPLEX INTERACTIONS

But even when marginalised minorities are telling the jokes or creating comedy about themselves, some suggest that laughter, empowerment, insight and subversion will not necessarily follow: unstable, misinterpreted readings are still possible and the comedy may fail.

What’s required, some writers say, is an understanding of the complex interactions between the teller and the audience that transforms ‘the tragic into the comic’ (Stronach and Allan 1999: 34). In the deconstruction of a simple scenario,

57

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

in which a blind woman mistakenly pours vase water (instead of vinegar) over her chips in a crowded restaurant, Stronach (1999) suggests that it is largely the

‘selfwork’ of the blind woman (the teller) that turns an awkward, pitying situation into one of comic relief. By laughing at her own embarrassing oversight, the woman ‘reclaims the event for farce rather than tragedy’ and her laughter allows the audience, the other diners, to laugh along with her: she elicits and ‘licenses their laughter, erasing the prohibition of the taboo’ that people shouldn’t laugh at disability (34, 35). But this transformation requires a conspiracy of concealment between teller and audience: they both know her disability caused the comic error but it is denied in favour of an ‘occasional in-ability’ (34). Her disability is displaced, the audience applauds the cover-up, and the ‘vulnerable surfaces of normality’ are preserved: ‘everything’s normal’ even though we all know it isn’t

(35).

Comedy scholars claim that an audience’s ability to laugh requires some identification with the pain or misfortune suffered by the teller; comedy’s ‘not just truth and pain, but universal, or at least general, truth and pain’ (Vorhaus 1994: 7).

Thus the blind woman’s disability (of which they presumably have not experienced) is transformed into an inability, an absent-mindedness they can grasp. To not conceal it might also encourage a feeling of ‘too much a loss of dignity’ or a hidden hostility, and laughter would be unlikely to be forthcoming

(Berger 1993: 1).

58

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

When disability comedy is attempted by those without disabilities, it’s even more complex and dangerous because additional unstable variables are at play and it’s more likely that an audience won’t interpret it as intended.

The most significant of these variables, according to many writers, is the direction in which the comedy is aimed. Comedy about disability may be misread if it’s unclear who’s the ‘butt’ of the joke, ‘the focus of the humour, that object which ensures that a joke is not merely laughing, but laughing at…’ (McKee 1996a: 53, see also Littlewood and Pickering 1998: 295). If the comedy is aimed at those who are powerless and vulnerable and can’t fight back (ie. disabled people), many agree that it will not be read as comedy and will ‘most often fail’ (Freud

1971: 753). They say making comedy out of other people and succeeding means putting them in situations in which they become comic ‘as a result of human dependence on external events, particularly social factors’ (753), directing the comedy at the authoritative and social structures that influence their lives

(Littlewood and Pickering 1998: 298). This can also be problematic: directing comedy at such structures has a danger of politicising the humour and this does not guarantee a stable reading. Mixing comedy and politics is an ‘unpredictable, hazardous mix’ because the message can appear self-righteous, preaching and sanctimonious (Littlewood and Pickering 1998: 298).

Further complicating stable readings of comedy, some argue, is that the ‘butts’ of comic representations are not always immediately distinguishable (McKee 1996a:

59

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

53) despite the best intentions of the comedy-maker. When the butt is unclear or ambivalent, audiences will look to other factors to find meaning, including the history of previous representations: ‘contemporary comic representations can be interpreted – and condemned – through the offensive intentions of the texts which have gone before’ (47).

In the absence of historical context, the status and backstory of the individual teller may be necessary to stabilise comic meaning (McKee 1996: 55). For example, the known image of Ernie Dingo as a television comedian stabilises the meaning of a particular aboriginal text as comedy but it does not render it entirely stable (55) because there’s no guarantee that comic representations of stereotypes won’t be ambivalently read as reinforcing attitudes and differences (52).

What’s ultimately required in the construction of a comedy narrative, particularly one featuring disabled people as lead actors, is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the instability of comic readings. This will encourage an approach that seeks stability by making the butts of jokes as identifiable as possible, promoting collaborative authorship (both real and perceived) and maintaining the perception that the disabled actors control the comedy.

2.8 CONCLUSIONS

Writers on disability imagery believe representations of disabled people on screen have an impact on how disabled people are viewed by others and how they see

60

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

themselves. To date, they have not been impressed by how the film and television industries have portrayed disabled people as victims, monsters and superheroes.

They want control of the images through disabled actors and creators.

But others do not support such an exclusive and divisive approach: they seek collaboration and partnership between disabled and non-disabled people, varieties of representations and approaches that consider not only who is speaking and who is seen to be speaking, but who is actually listening and how a wider audience can be reached. Much of the commentary and criticism of disability portrayals ignores the practicality of reaching an audience through classical approaches to storytelling and structure.

The genre of comedy adds layers of complexity to the mix: it is a difficult, taboo area for many because there’s the risk that the laughter may be ‘at the expense of disabled people’ (Davies 1997: 68). It’s difficult for people to laugh at disability because they’re ultimately laughing at themselves and heir own inevitable fate of old age and disablement: ‘How can we laugh at ourselves and our own calamities?’ (Albrecht 1999: 67). Comedy’s tough on its creators: they are misunderstood, their meaning’s not seized, their point of view’s ignored, and they’re accused of ‘dishonouring human nature’, being ‘hostile to sentiment’,

‘tending to spitefulness’ and ‘making an unfair use of laughter’ (Meredith 1971:

744).

61

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

The challenge, whether through comedy, drama, thriller or documentary, is ‘trying to hold fast to some perspective of changing the world, making it a better place, while accepting and negotiating difference’ (Hall 1994: 18).

In the remainder of this thesis, I will outline my approach to the construction of a filmed comedy narrative, how the agendas of external agencies impacted on the process, the extent to which it is possible to accurately portray the true voice of disabled people, and the significance of audience and storytelling demands on the form and content of the narrative.

62

C HAPTER T HREE: R ESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

his research project involves the production of a filmed comedy T narrative, the creation of a fictional artistic work that will serve two broad purposes. Firstly, the completed work itself will be presented and evaluated for its successes and failures against the questions and criteria raised in the initial research concern: does it have the potential to reach a wide audience and does it give its disabled stars a voice? Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the practice of doing the creative work – the conception, production, direction and post-production phases – will be reviewed and analysed in detail in order to discover (through the experience of practice) the constraints, limitations and barriers that are encountered in attempting to create such a filmed narrative. It is only through such attention to the ‘doing’ of the practice that unique approaches and improved techniques can be discovered and revealed (Haseman 2006: np).

63

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

3.2 THE METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach to such a project can be situated within a ‘practice- led’ research method. Practice-led research is that which is ‘initiated in practice, where questions, problems, challenges are identified and formed by the needs of practice and practitioners’ with a strategy that will be ‘carried out through practice, using predominantly methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners’ (Gray 1996: 3). It has been argued that this paradigm does not fit within the traditional methodologies of quantitative and qualitative research and, as such, is a unique methodology in its own right. Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies ‘fail to meet the needs’ of practice-led researchers, particularly in the creative areas of arts, media and design (Haseman 2006: np).

Quantitative research is situated at one end of the methodological spectrum, working with measurable, numerical data, setting forth hypotheses and testing them with ‘scientific, deductive approaches’ (Haseman 2006: np). It is a methodology that aims to ‘eliminate the individual perspective of the researcher’ with generalised and formulated findings that are expressed in experimentally- examined ‘numbers, graphs and formulas’ (Schwandt 2001: 213, see also Denzin and Lincoln 2000: 8). Qualitative research differs because it embraces ‘the perspectives of researchers and participants’, drawing on many texts, sources and approaches to present findings that are more interested in capturing ‘observed, interpreted and nuanced properties of behaviours, responses and things’ (Haseman

64

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

2006: np). It is ‘a situated activity that locates the observer in the world’, taking an interpretative, naturalistic approach to things, attempting to make sense, interpret and understand ‘phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2000: 3). These methods turn the world into ‘a series of representations’ through field notes, conversations, photographs, interviews and ‘memos to the self’ (3).

Practice-based research methodologies fall within the qualitative tradition and aim to investigate the instabilities, complexities and unpredictable nature of practice by seeking to improve practice and establish ‘new epistemologies of practice’ from the researcher’s participation in and understanding of the practice (Haseman

2006: np). But, for many academics, these practice-based methodologies limit some researchers because they ‘distort the communication of practice’ and rely too heavily on written outcomes (np).

The solution, they say, is not a methodology that fits within the qualitative tradition but one that operates separately. This methodology, practice-led research, differs from the broad qualitative approaches and practice-based methods in a two significant ways. Firstly, it is less concerned with a rigid research problem at the outset and, secondly, it necessitates a different approach to research outputs that move beyond written, explanatory exegeses (np).

65

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

3.3 PROBLEM- DRIVEN BUT NOT LED

Those who champion practice-led research methods as a unique methodology claim its ‘intrinsically experiential’ nature does not fit comfortably with the

‘problem-led’ approach of quantitative and quantitative traditions (including practice-based approaches), both of which require the formation of a central research question as a starting point. Practitioners do not encounter problems in the real world as ‘givens’; they are constructed from the ‘puzzling, troubling and uncertain’ problematic situations that arise through practice (Schon 1983: 40), where ‘ questions, problems and challenges are identified and formed by the needs of practice and practitioners’ (Gray 1996: 3). Instead, the practice-led researcher frequently begins not with a problem but with ‘an enthusiasm of practice’ (Haseman 2006: np), an individual, idiosyncratic, unruly ‘div[ing] in’ to see ‘what emerges’. Their research space is a ‘swampy lowland’ with messy, chaotic problems that require ‘muddling through’, trial and error, intuition, and experience (Schon 1983: 43). It is not so much problem-solving as ‘problem- finding’, the seeking out of dissonance, disorder and difficulty rather than consensus, order and synthesis (Bilton 2007: 40)

This isn’t to say that such an approach lacks any sense of agenda or aspiration: indeed, practice-led researchers do not avoid problem-setting altogether but rather the ‘narrow problem-setting’ and ‘rigid methodological requirements’ at the commencement of their project (Haseman 2006: np). Enthusiasms and unruliness

66

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

aside, practice-led research is an ‘intentional, deliberate, accessible and creative’ process (Gray 1996: 12).

3.4 EXPRESSING FINDINGS DIFFERENTLY

The second major difference between practice-based and practice-led approaches is the presentation of research outputs. Supporters of practice-led research believe it demands a different mode of data presentation than simply validating or reviewing the creative work and its researchers ‘have little interest’ in translating and explaining their findings through the numbers and discursive words of traditional paradigms (Haseman 2006: np). This argument sees limitation in the ability of words to ‘capture the nuances and subtleties of human behaviour’ (np) in creative practices and wants findings expressed in symbolic, presentational forms, including stills and moving images. Academics who champion practice-led paradigms believe the creative research output, a film or play or artwork, works

‘performatively’ by expressing the research and, in that expression, becoming ‘the research itself’ (np). The creative, material outputs of such research projects are

‘research findings in their own right’ (np).

It is this difference between practice-led research and the traditional methodologies that is the most contentious. Many doubt the ‘capacity of images to function as research’, citing the difficulty in judging the scholarly and intellectual worth of a creative work (Candlin 2000: 2). These academics require

67

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

the accompaniment of ‘written contextual material’ to enable judgment of worth

(2). But others say the requirement of an explanatory, contextualising written component ‘directly contradicts’ the recognition of a creative work as a valid research output in its own right (Marshall and Newton 2000: 2). This approach devalues creative works, putting them on the same level as scientific data upon which ‘real’ research is based (2). The term exegesis implies a separate written text from the creative work and it’s this separation that creates problems: it can

‘emasculate’ the creative work in the research because the written text is given more importance (Vella 2005: np). The separation raises the danger that candidates may become ‘disenfranchised’ from their creative practice. Instead, the exegesis should be approached as if it was a ‘lens that provides discovery and coherent understanding’ of the creative work, ‘embracing its contradictions, anomalies and ambiguities’ (np). The making of the work and the ‘explanation, experience and interpretation’ of the work are in a ‘dynamic relationship’ (np).

A more sustainable argument sits somewhere in between, acknowledging the creative work as research but not ignoring the accompaniment of other methodological approaches, such as an exegetical component: the true discipline of research requires the context of previous knowledge, theories and processes.

Ignoring these and the paradigms of research undervalues and undermines practice-led research (Stewart 2001: 4). What’s required, some argue, is a

‘complex intertwining of all components’ and an understanding that the

68

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

combination of the creative work and the exegetical component (in whatever form it may take) is what produces ‘meaningfulness’ (Vella 2005: np).

3.5 CONFLICTING ROLES

In addition to defining research problems from the chaotic ‘swampy lowland’

(Schon 1983: 43) of creative practice and constructing accessible and communicable research outputs, the practitioner-researcher must also balance their conflicting roles.

Many academics believe the duality of the roles created by practice-led research – as both practitioner and researcher, subject and observer -- create tension and conflict between subjectivity and objectivity, ‘doing versus thinking and writing’ and ‘intuition versus logic’ (Gray 1996: 7). But this does not mean the researcher wears ‘alternate hats’; rather, they wear ‘but one which integrates or at least allows difference to co-exist’ (7). Subjectivity in this sense is a strength: the practitioner comes from an ‘informed perspective’, ‘identify[ing] problems raised in practice and respond[ing] through practice’: it’s a ‘multifaceted role’ in which they are sometimes self-observer, sometimes participant, sometimes observing others, and sometimes reflecting on action and in action (13). This duality of role creates a methodology that is largely responsive, ‘driven by the requirements of practice and the creative dynamic of the artwork’ (15).

69

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Indeed, it is only from the perspective of a practitioner-researcher that valuable processes of reflection are possible. Reflection-in-action, a process of ‘thinking on your feet’ and ‘learning by doing’ sees a practitioner utilise the skills, judgments and experience he knows in situations of uncertainty or instability

(Schon 1983: 54). Such reflection is built around a ‘surprise’ to what normally occurs, an uncertainty or unexpected turn that is either welcome or unwanted; its arrival is greeted with a response of reflection-in-action, a process which considers the outcome of the action, the action itself and ‘the intuitive knowing implicit in the action’ (56). It is from this process, and other strategies like it, that both creative works and practices are improved and knowledge in the world is gained.

3.6 DRAWING ON MANY STRATEGIES

Reflection-in-action is one of several strategies employed on this project.

Invariably, practice-led researchers draw on many strategies from within the qualitative tradition to enhance and accompany their practice-led strategy

(Haseman 2006: np).

The filmmaker as ‘bricoleur’ assembles images into montages (Denzin and

Lincoln 2000: 4), using the tools of the trade to ‘stitch, edit and put slices of reality together’ and, in the process, bring psychological and emotional unity to an interpretive experience’ (5). The resulting montage is a quilt-like interpretive

70

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

structure that brings together ‘a sequence of representations connecting all the parts to the whole’. This bricolage extends beyond the creative work to the research as a whole, which similarly requires the combining of a diversity in approaches and an ‘amalgam of processes and procedures’ (Stewart 2000: 3), from interviewing, journaling , observing, and reflecting to create a unified and coherent whole (Denzin and Lincoln 2000: 5, see also Weinstein and Weinstein

1991: 164, Stewart 2000: 5).

Experience is the ‘touchstone’, the starting point; from there, practitioner- researchers must step back and objectively analyse situations, ‘recognise and observe bias’, think ‘abstractly’, and discover new and innovative processes through the gathering of ‘valid and reliable data’ (Stewart 2000; 6). If ‘we’re going to play in the field of research’, what’s needed is an approach that takes in many research methods and strategies, recognising the limits and strengths of each and seeing what fits best (5).

The filmed narrative of this project is research in its own right but the accompaniment of this exegesis gives it theoretical and historical context, and documents the limitations, obstacles and barriers implicit in the pursuit of the research proposition. Notwithstanding the significance of the completed filmed narrative, it is that which has not been included, takes that were not used and narrative approaches that failed, that also sheds light on successful practice in this

71

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

arena. Indeed, the inclusion of selected ‘deleted scenes’ emphasises the argument that an exegesis need not only be a written text (Vella 2005: np).

But before exegetical material can be addressed, the design of the creative work, that which forms the basis of this research investigation, must be considered.

3.7 THE CREATIVE PRACTICE

The methods employed in the conception and production of the creative work aimed to serve the two broad objectives of the research: express the voice of intellectually-disabled people and reach the widest possible audience.

Reaching a wide audience means using the techniques of storytelling and filmmaking that have worked for decades: methods that seek to elicit emotion in an audience through an engaging structure, active and identifiable characters, universal themes, external conflict and a chain of ongoing cause-and-effect

(McKee 1998, Hauge 1988, Field 2003, Vogler 1999). Most of the books on creating and writing successful screen narratives address all of these elements in one form or another and their advice can be best summarised into three broad categories: the concept that sparks from an idea, the structure that builds the foundation, and the stylistic approach that conveys the story to an audience.

These elements work together to form the narrative, they intersect and overlap with each other and the success of their execution is fundamental to reaching and

72

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

sustaining the widest possible audience (McKee 1998; see also Hauge 1988; Field

2003; Vogler 1999).

Complicating these traditional methods of attracting and engaging audiences was the need to express the voice of the disabled as fully, freely and independently as possible. Doing this meant developing collaborative strategies in the creation and construction of the narrative’s concept and structure, and improvisational strategies in the stylistic approach to the narrative. Such collaboration and improvisation could only occur when the ethical and consensual dimensions of the project had been considered.

3.8 ETHICS AND CONSENT

Research involving the participation of humans requires the approval of QUT’s

University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC),which adheres to The

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (National

Health and Medical Research Council et al 2007).

Given my friendship with the main research participants, my experience and understanding of their ability to consent to, contribute to and engage in a film production, and the involvement of disability organisation Spectrum, I applied for a level 2 (expedited) ethical clearance. This type of clearance acknowledges that, although there are risks associated with the study, they can be easily minimised and managed. The level 2 clearance requires that participants ‘with mental or

73

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

intellectual impairment’ are able to ‘supply voluntary and informed consent’ to the research. This clearance was granted.

During and after the presentation of the confirmation seminar of this project (one year into candidature), at which the research undertaken was presented and discussed (selected rushes from the first nine days of filming), the level of ethical clearance was challenged by two academics, who protested that ‘the project was not given a high enough ethics rating to adequately protect the disabled men in it’

(McLeish 2007: np).

These challenges were pursued publicly by the academics in various forms and by many external commentators, who did not let their lack of knowledge of the participants’ ability to consent and understand the project conflict with their desire to protect them: ‘Exploring authorship and exploitation in disability comedy is a legitimate academic aim, however it is not legitimate to explore this by reproducing relationships which are exploitative, by representing vulnerable people with disability in offensive ways or by exposing them to public mockery’

(Cocks, quoted in Hookham 2007: np). Such statements were commonly followed by attacks on the ethical process by which the project was approved:

‘[QUT] has made a monumental miscalculation in giving its blessing to the unfortunate Michael Noonan's thesis’ (Rabiger, quoted in Hookham 2007a: np).

Following a formal complaint by the two academics who initiated concerns, the

UHREC conducted an audit of the project. This audit found ‘no major grounds

74

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

for objection to the manner, review and approval’ of the project and reported no evidence of ‘harm, ridicule, discomfort or exploitation’ to the participants.

Indeed, it noted the positive intentions of the researcher, the positive impact on the participants and their treatment with ‘dignity and sensitivity’ (Appendix 1.1).

Despite this, further complaints were initiated against the project by the two academics, who claimed that the inclusion of an Aboriginal woman in the footage shown at the confirmation seminar constituted a breach of the research protocols dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Hookham 2007: np). Formal complaints were made to the National Health and Medical Research Council

(NHMRC) which, in turn, investigated and found that QUT and UHREC had

‘acted appropriately’ and were able to justify the ethical review process and subsequent audit of the project. The NHMRC clearance acknowledged UHREC’s finding that the involvement of the indigenous woman was ‘coincidental and incidental’, had adhered to film industry-accepted standards of consent and was not subject to research protocols dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islanders (Appendix 1.2).

The complaints against this project, and the hysteria that followed, raise significant and relevant issues for those pursuing further practice-led research in this area and, indeed, for producers and directors using disabled talent in non- research projects. The overwhelming public response, based on Hookham and

MacLennan’s misrepresentations (MacLennan and Hookham 2007) and the broad

75

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

description of the participants as ‘intellectually disabled’, presumed exploitation and the impossibility of informed consent. Such generalised presumptions are those which this project seeks to eliminate: treating disabled people as members of an all-encompassing, inescapable club which decides how they should be represented and deprives them of individual worth and the capacity to consent.

76

C HAPTER F OUR: T HE D OING OF THE C REATIVE W ORK

4.1 INTRODUCTION

he ‘doing’ of this project – the conception and production of a filmed T comedy narrative starring, co-created and co-written by intellectually- disabled people – presented significant personal and professional challenges.

Many of these are faced and overcome by filmmakers tackling subjects and genres of all kinds, regardless of the involvement of intellectually-disabled people. But a number of the challenges related specifically to the inclusion of disabled people

(as actors, co-creators and co-writers) and, significantly, to negotiating the project’s often-conflicting goals of reaching the widest possible audience and allowing the disabled collaborators to contribute independently and meaningfully to the work.

Finding this balance was further complicated by the involvement and interference of external parties, including over-protective activists, who brought with them a range of agendas.

77

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

These challenges, and what has been learned from them, can be best summarised across three broad areas:

(1) using concept, structure and stylistic approach to reach a wide audience and express the voice of the intellectually-disabled;

(2) understanding and managing intellectually-disabled, untrained actors with regard to their interpretation of fictional narratives;

(3) acknowledging and negotiating the concerns, demands and agendas of external groups, whose interference was sometimes well-intentioned.

4.2 THE USE OF CONCEPT, STRUCTURE AND

STY LISTIC APPROACH

As discussed in previous chapters, this project seeks to find a balance between entertainment and expression, using techniques of storytelling and filmmaking to reach the widest possible audience while collaborating with intellectually-disabled actors, co-creators and co-writers. Rarely have these objectives been sought together: many writers on disability representation want disabled people to express their voice and have full control of the content and production of narratives (Beatson 1996: 88, see also Sutherland 1997: 20, Safran 1998a: 477) but there is little consideration for whether or not these narratives will be accessible and engaging to anyone. In the past, the failure of disability voices to reach the mainstream has been blamed on ‘the marginalisation of specialist

78

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

disability programmes into ‘ghetto-slots’ (Ross 1997: iii in Barnes, Mercer et al.

1999), ignoring any critique of the strength or quality of the narratives. If disabled people can produce ‘fresh, exciting stories about disability’ that will

‘blow the past [representations] away’ (Sutherland 1997: 20), why not do everything possible to ensure an audience will watch?

Narratives that have traditionally attracted and engaged audiences are fictional: both feature-length and television documentaries do not reach large audiences with any consistency (Roscoe and Hight 2001: 26-27). Creating a fictional narrative that reaches an audience means creating an ‘emotional experience’

(Hauge 1988: 4). Audiences go to the movies and watch television programs because they provide ‘the love, the hate, the fear, the passion, the excitement

[and] the humour’ (3); they engage and identify with the protagonist, they ‘merge with him and see the world of the story through his eyes’ (Vogler 1999: 36).

Achieving this requires the use of techniques that have been tried and tested over many decades, which can be broadly described as a classical approach to narrative.

There are some writers, however, who reject formulaic, prescribed approaches to narratives and seek plot-deprived ‘art films’ that stray from the rules of classical approaches and often exist ‘to oppose the popular and commercial’ (McKee 1998:

64, see also Arp and Johnson 2009: 5) . Some disability studies theorists believe traditional narratives, mainstream approaches, and nondisabled ‘views of quality’ are part of the problem (Pick 1992: 18-20) and want to empower disabled artists

79

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

and their voices by avoiding such things (Barnes, Mercer et al. 1999: 207). This is an entirely reasonable and valid approach as long as you are not trying to reach a wide audience. But this project has taken a different approach.

Films and television programs that fail to find distributors and broadcasters, and are ‘unwatchable’ by audiences, suffer from poor technique in writing, dramatic structure, acting and directing – and ‘they sink without a trace’ (Rabiger 2008:

14). Those that reach audiences have solid structures, strong thematic content and powerful characters: structure allows an audience to become ‘oriented’ and

‘focused’ throughout the narrative, the exploration of a theme enables an audience to connect with universal meaning, and goal-driven, three-dimensional characters help an audience ‘understand and identify’ (Seger 2003: 222). The techniques of successful storytelling, as previously outlined, can be summarised into three broad categories: concept, structure and stylistic approach.

On this project, the mastering of storytelling and filmmaking techniques was complicated by the need for the intellectually-disabled stars and creative collaborators to play a significant part in their implementation: to contribute independently and meaningfully to the work and freely express their voice and view of the world. Negotiating and managing this balance took many attempts over three years.

80

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

4.3 THE CONCEPT

The concept or subject of a narrative encapsulates what the story is about: it’s ‘the idea that inspires the writer’s desire to create a story’ (McKee 1998: 112). For some, this concept or premise is best expressed as both a ‘character’ and an

‘action’: a sheriff takes action to kill a man-eating shark or an archaeologist takes action to find a missing and powerful relic (Field 1984: 9). For me, on this project, the concept formed initially from a character: a wonderful, real-life, fun- loving character called Darren.

Darren was the undisputed star of Unlikely Travellers, a feature documentary I had made about six intellectually-disabled people who travelled to Egypt in 2005.

He was a born performer and he thrived on being the centre of attention. The camera, the people he engaged with, and the audience, all loved him. His was a unique and life-affirming voice and I felt the world needed to hear more of it.

When I asked him to be part of a new television show that would form the basis of my PhD, exploring issues of disability representation and comedy, he initially understood little of what a PhD involved -- but he loved the idea of being on TV again. The story concept involved him ‘doing something’ but I didn’t quite know what: I had a ‘character’ but no ‘action’.

Wanting Darren to be as creatively involved as possible, I quizzed him about what sort of show he’d like to be in. He replied immediately that he wanted to travel to

81

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

the home of Lego in Denmark: he had a massive pile of the stuff in his room and the Legoland capital was his ‘mecca’.

I had more experience than Darren in devising workable film and television concepts and testing them against the often-brutal judgement of commissioning editors and funding bodies. I initially pitched the Unlikely Travellers concept as

‘six disabled people go to Egypt’. The feedback was not generous: one former programmer said it would ‘never screen on planet Earth’. Others called it

‘unsexy’, ‘a freak show’ and ‘nothing more than disabled people going on a holiday’. That it eventually did screen on broadcast television was testament to the refinement of the show’s concept, not just in the wording of the pitching but in the conceptual framework that held the narrative together. Refocusing on what the story was really about meant moving away from the basic idea of ‘challenged people taking a trip’ to ‘a journey of six troubled characters who prove they have something to offer the world’. While both concepts involved ‘characters’ and

‘action’, the action of the latter gave the ‘dual pleasure’ that good stories give audiences: a glimpse into a world they might never encounter (the world of troubled, disabled people) and the ability to identify with the conflicts and characters of that world through universal, emotional appeal: ‘once inside this alien world, we find ourselves... and we discover our own humanity’ (McKee

1998: 5).

As much as I wanted Darren to be the driving creative force of the new show, I didn’t see much potential for an episodic TV series in what he had proposed and I

82

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

suspected broadcasters would reject it as a variation of the ‘disabled man takes a holiday’ narrative. Darren had an engaging and watchable character, and he was capable of drawing an audience into his unique world, but the ‘action’ of the concept – his trip to Legoland – didn’t immediately evoke universally-moving, dramatic or even comedic moments. Many writers draw on variations of

Stanislavski’s ‘Magic if’ hypothetical when coming up with, or testing the strength of, a premise: ‘What would happen if..?’ (McKee, 1998: 112, see also

Hunter, 1993: 32, Hauge 1988: 11). I tried this with Darren’s proposal: What would happen if Darren went to Legoland? He would undoubtedly have fun, meet people, maybe he’d struggle with the language or his inability to take all the Lego home. Maybe the queues would get to him, he’d get lost, fall into one of the really expensive Lego structures. Maybe it’d be funny, maybe it wouldn’t. I looked beyond the basic plot to what it was really about: what would happen if an intellectually-disabled man travelled across the world to fulfil a childhood dream?

The concept had more universal appeal in this context but it was also strikingly similar to Unlikely Travellers. Darren had already chased down a childhood dream in Egypt and this project needed to do more.

I told Darren we would have to keep searching for a more original concept. I said he could pay for his own trip to Legoland if we came up with something really good – and he seemed OK with that. I did not feel that my rejection of Darren’s initial concept lessened or weakened our collaborative approach. Collaboration requires, and often demands, that a skilled storyteller (whether they’re disabled or

83

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

not) use the tools at their disposal to tell the best possible story and reach the widest possible audience (Booth 1996: 252). Narrative researchers, novelists and filmmakers who don’t use their skills of concept selection, structure or editing to take the reader or viewer with them have ‘failed their subjects’ and ‘are wasting their time’ (252).

One of Darren’s greatest strengths is his lack of inhibition: he isn’t afraid to talk to anyone in any environment. At a packed football game during Unlikely

Travellers, I asked him if he’d mind going up and talking to a tattooed, particularly scary-looking guy in a Brisbane Lions jumper. I thought it might be good footage and I didn’t think it was irresponsible direction: I knew Darren had a way with people and he didn’t flinch at my request, making a beeline for the guy in question with a big smile on his face. Within five minutes they were the best of buddies: they ended up sharing beers and singing the Lions’ anthem together. I went out with Darren for dinner and drinks on many occasions after that and he’d behave similarly with all kinds of strangers. It was fascinating and refreshing to watch, particularly in the rough-and-tumble world of Aussie pubs, and it got me thinking.

Darren’s Pub Crawl seemed a great concept at first: it would be an episodic, six- part series for television following Darren as he traversed the continent’s pubs and clubs. He would make conversation with half-drunk locals, play darts, pool and pinball, and engage in general silliness where possible. Darren would not only meet people in the pub, he’d catch up with them the following day on their farm,

84

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

in their shop or at the abattoir where they worked. The show would play to

Darren’s strengths as an extroverted improviser and would expose and challenge misconceptions about disability, particularly those surrounding alcohol and violence. But more significantly, it would shine a light on how Australians of all kinds deal with intellectual disability, especially when it arrives at their local pub.

I told Darren about the concept and he said he couldn’t wait to start filming: he loved going to his local pub at Bellbowrie and this would allow him to do it all the time, just at other pubs. But his initial excitement was tempered by two concerns: he didn’t want to miss too many days at the nursery where he worked, and he was worried that the other cast members of Unlikely Travellers would be missing out -

- he thought they might be jealous of him having his own show. I told him we would film in short, pre-planned blocks that would not interrupt his work schedule and assured him that the other travellers would be proud of him, not jealous. He understood that opportunities could not be given to everyone: just as only six could be taken to Egypt, only one could go on a pub crawl across Australia. I told him his fellow travellers would have opportunities in their lives that he wouldn’t and he accepted this, saying he would invite them all to the premiere.

The new concept had more episodic potential than the previous proposal (a different pub each week) and a stronger and more original ‘what if?’ hypothesis:

What would happen if an intellectually-disabled guy went into a pub each week to meet people and find out about their lives? But, unlike Darren’s Legoland premise, this concept lacked a meaningful overall purpose for its protagonist; a

85

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

clear and specific external goal. It was not a childhood dream of Darren’s to visit pubs and meet people: it was just something he wanted to do. At the very heart of a solid concept, and watertight dramatic structure, is the goal, the ‘desire’, the

‘dramatic need’ of the protagonist (Field 1984: 56, see also McKee 1998: 50). It is that which the character strives to achieve, win or gain; its attainment reveals obstacles and generates conflict; and its ultimate achievement or the failure of that achievement results in a meaningful resolution (56). For a story to work, the hero must have ‘one consuming motivation’ (Hunter 1993: 77), a protagonist ‘with clear needs and hurdles obstructing the path to satisfying those needs’ (Walter

1988: 48, see also Hauge, 1988: 53).

The format of Darren’s Pub Crawl, an episodic program, required not just a goal for the series as a whole but one for each episode. Neither of these existed beyond dramatically-vague goals like ‘meeting people’, ‘making new friends’ and

‘exploring the world’. This weakness of story goals manifested itself in other concerns: without the forward momentum created by the protagonist’s dramatic need, could a half-hour of pub conversations sustain and engage an audience?

Was Darren talented enough to carry a six-part series for a wide audience? Did the practical and ethical difficulties of shooting in pubs outweigh the potential of the concept?

There was enough doubt in the concept to force a rethink. I discussed it with

Darren and he wasn’t particularly fazed: he said he was ready to go no matter what, and he’d happily wait until I had ‘worked out what we were doing’. He

86

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

wasn’t being indifferent; rather, he trusted and respected my abilities as the director and seemed content for me to take control of the conceptual process. But this project was not about subscribing to traditional auteur approaches to filmmaking, those in which the writer/director ‘controls the whole screen realization process’ (Rabiger 2008: 14). Such romantic notions of creativity –

‘the idea of an artist as an isolated individualist’ – are ‘simply impossible’ in film and television and they contradicted everything I was trying to achieve (15).

There is very little writing specifically on collaborating with people with intellectual disabilities in the conception and production of filmed narratives.

However, as previously discussed, the work of Booth (1996) is relevant here. He encourages narrative researchers to manipulate, edit, rework and take control of stories for the benefit of the narrative (252) but he is also mindful of the need for researchers to avoid ‘misappropriating the lives of the people whose stories are being told’ (245). As much as I appreciated Darren’s faith in my judgement, I wanted and needed the concept to come from us both. And, ultimately, it did.

Darren loves mysteries. In Egypt, he was determined to discover the truth behind

Tutankhamen’s death, find out if there was more than one Sphinx (there was) and look behind a secret trapdoor under the Sphinx’s foot (there wasn’t). He watched

The X-Files and played video games about ghosts and supernatural stuff. One day he asked me to download a list of directions from a website: they were clues of some kind, a cheat sheet for a video game he was playing. It reminded me of the passion he had for working out problems and finding the answers to things, even

87

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

if it was just reaching the next level on a computer game. It was a drive and a purpose that defined him, that made him who he was -- and it was the key conceptual element we’d been missing.

BeDazzled: Darren’s Magical Mystery Tour would follow him across the continent as he solved Australia’s unexplained phenomena. He would engage with people of all walks of life, swapping stories with publicans, rodeo riders and little old ladies in craft shops. He would seek to solve a mystery by the end of each episode and there would be an overarching purpose to his mystery-solving journey, something along the lines of ‘trying to find his place in the world’ or

‘proving he could do something that no-one else could’. Darren and I talked at length about the new concept and he was more excited than he’d ever been. We modelled our early discussions on the Scooby-Doo cartoon: he said he’d wear his favourite Mickey Mouse t-shirt and I said we’d buy a bright-coloured Combi van for him to drive around in. Free and creative collaboration was in full swing: we were ‘working together’ and making up the rules as we went along (Field 2003:

354), embarking on a ‘collective endeavour’ that would hopefully result in something ‘greater than the sum of its parts’ (Ingmar Bergman in Rabiger 2008).

The development of the BeDazzled concept coincided with a re-editing of

Unlikely Travellers for broadcast as a three-part series on ABC Television. The timing of this proved fortuitous on two fronts: firstly, it reminded me of Darren’s warm, brotherly and often-hilarious relationship with James, who had become his housemate at the conclusion of the film. And, secondly, I remembered some of

88

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

the books James had packed before the trip to Egypt: they were all about mysteries. It was hard to forget them because he was trying to stack about 10 of them into his backpack and they kept falling out onto the floor. Suddenly, the concept had a potential new twist: could James join the mystery tour too?

It made perfect sense: James was equally passionate about mysteries and adding him to the mix would give dimension and narrative potential to the concept. I approached both Darren and James about the idea and they loved it: they had become good friends and would enjoy travelling together again. Within days,

James had texted me with two ideas for mysteries they could solve: a missing boat on Lasseter’s Reef and the picnic at Hanging Rock.

This bringing together of talent, the decision to add James to the cast, is what producers of all films and television programs do: they are the ‘chief co-ordinator among the production people’(Zettl 2009: 35), the person who encourages the cast and crew to ‘utilise fully their skills and talent to create an excellent film’ (Jeffrey

1995: 171). Producing means choosing the right idea, picking the best people, and creating ‘an environment in which the full potential of the project can be realised’

(170).

The broad concept and the talent for the show was now in place: Darren and

James: Down Under Mystery Tour, a six-part, half-hour series for television, would feature two men with intellectual disabilities travelling around Australia to

89

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

solve mysteries. It had characters, action, definable goals and an episodic nature that suited the format. The next step was to give it structure.

4.4 THE STRUCTURE

Structure is fundamental to the design of a narrative, and to reaching and sustaining an audience. At its simplest, the structure of a film or television program involves ‘a change from an initial situation to a final situation’ (Bordwell and Thompson 1997: 99), a plot consisting of ‘an undisturbed stage, the disturbance, the struggle and the elimination of the disturbance’ (Bordwell 1985 in Vasey: 305). The classic Hollywood approach to structure is built around a three act structure that has a beginning, middle and end (Aristotle 1974: 232, see also Field 2003: 11, 15, Douglass and Harnden 1996: 48, Smith 1999: 88). The beginning sets up the main protagonist, his goal or ‘outer motivation’ (Hauge

1988: 89), the locale and other relevant characters; the middle is ‘the struggle to achieve the solution to the problem defined’ through complications and rising conflict; and the end resolves the problem, indicating growth on the part of the protagonist and sometimes revealing that the goal sought is not the real goal that was needed (Douglass and Harnden 1996: 50).

The importance of structure is the cornerstone of most textbooks on screenwriting and filmmaking, and it was drilled into me throughout my undergraduate studies and beyond, particularly when I was working on scripts with funding bodies: ‘the three most important facets of story craft are (1) structure; (2) structure; (3)

90

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

structure’ (Walter 1988: 37, see also Seger 2003: 3). I wrote and directed about

12 short films before Unlikely Travellers and I became obsessive about structure.

But something went wrong on this project. The importance of structure eluded me, at least in the beginning. On reflection, there were three significant reasons for this: firstly, the Unlikely Travellers experience (and its relative success) had softened my approach to structure; secondly, the objective of this project – to collaborate as freely as possible with disabled people – seemed at odds with the rigid, controlling framework that structure necessitated; and, thirdly, structure relies upon layers of ongoing conflict that are ethically and narratively difficult to manufacture when dealing with disabled people.

There was no script for Unlikely Travellers. The Spectrum Organization was taking a group of disabled people to Egypt and they wanted me and a two-man crew to film it. Structurally, from the outset, the concept had three very basic acts: the selection of the chosen six, preparation and training, and travelling and coming home. The film’s broad narrative arc centred on the chosen six achieving something, although it was unclear at the beginning what that would be. It was a documentary first and foremost and its stylistic approach demanded certain documentary traditions: interviews, observational footage and ‘diary cam’ entries.

We followed the characters around, talked to them, got to know them and watched them do all sorts of things, hoping there’d be conflict, complications and high- emotion. That the film came together structurally was ultimately the result of the journey’s ‘inbuilt’ structure: the characters all had very real, tangible goals that

91

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

they pursued and achieved to varying degrees. Imposing structure, narrative arcs and dramatic goals wasn’t necessary because they were already there.

The temptation on the new show was to do the same: to interfere as little as possible and let Darren and James roam free across the continent, exploring mysteries and expressing their voice and view of the world. This was, after all, one of the key objectives of the project. I didn’t want to impose a structure on the journey because that would be the equivalent of telling Darren and James what they should do and where they should end up: it would take away from the collaborative intent and their authorship of the work. Consequently, filming of the pilot episode of Darren and James: Down Under Mystery Tour – the search for the Min Min Lights at Boulia -- took the same ‘follow-and-see’ approach as

Unlikely Travellers. I arranged interviews in advance with the locals – the publican, tour centre operator, truck driver, shopkeeper and others – but Darren and James were left to their own devices as to what questions or topics they wanted to discuss, guided only by the fact that their ultimate external goal was to solve the mystery of the lights. This led to many questions from James about whether there were any single and available girls in the town, whether or not they would fit in if they moved to the town and what would happen to the town’s tourism industry if they solved the mystery. Though James often wandered off topic, Darren maintained a steady and unwavering focus on the mystery and often drew James back in to the subject of the interview.

92

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

A total of approximately 14 interviews were conducted at Boulia and these were accompanied by footage of Darren and James engaging in additional activities during their visit, most of which they had suggested: setting up tent and building a fire, performing in a singing contest at the community hall, clowning around with a rodeo bull, pontificating in the car and traipsing through bushland to find

‘clues’. The resulting footage, edited into an initial 42-minute episode, resembled the approach that had been taken: random, spontaneous and ultimately directionless.

The weaknesses of the material were largely structural. There was a beginning, in which Darren and James explained the broad purpose of the episode (‘to solve the

Min Min Lights mystery’) and their mystery tour as a whole (‘to help people move on with their lives’) but these goals did not explore Darren and James’ own personal journeys and motivations. The lack of inner goals led not only to a weak and superficial climax but also robbed the episode of its potential for meaningful subtext and thematic exploration. While there were occasional references to

James looking for a girlfriend throughout the episode, this goal was not set-up strongly enough in the beginning and it was not shaped by a narrative arc that allowed insight into his lack of, and yearning for, a relationship with a woman.

The ‘middle’ of the episode lacked momentum and direction, due to little or no cause-and-effect. A forward-moving narrative was hampered by repetitive interviews that lacked causal connection: Darren and James drifted from one interview to another for no real reason and engaged in activities that had no link

93

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

or relevance to a previous interview. In addition, most of the activities they did had no direct relevance to the solving of the mystery and were merely events that had been happening in the town at the time (including the singing competition and the ‘Back to Boulia’ rodeo event).

The resolution of the film suffered from a lack of inner goals and the inability to credibly resolve the outer goals. The main external goal that had been established at the head of the episode -- solving the mystery – presented significant problems.

Given no-one has been able to provide a definitive explanation of the Min Min

Lights for decades, including scientists and academics, it was extremely unlikely that Darren and James would be able to solve it. This on its own was not necessarily a structural or narrative problem – plenty of protagonists fail to reach their goals in successful films – but the lack of other goals meant that Darren and

James finished the episode having learnt and achieved very little. Their failure led to nothing: they weren’t awakened or redeemed or changed by the journey in any way. Filmed diary entries shed light on what they thought the lights might be, and they journeyed into dark bushland to see if they could find them, but ultimately there was no concrete, satisfying conclusion on any level – external or internal.

Permeating throughout these weaknesses was a significant lack of conflict.

McKee’s (1998) ‘law of conflict’ states that ‘nothing moves forward in a story except through conflict’ (210). It is ‘to storytelling what sound is to music’, ‘the soul of story’, and it ‘engages our thoughts and emotions’ (211). The problem

94

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

was that there had been almost no conflict throughout the journey: Darren and

James got on famously, nothing went wrong in terms of bad weather or mechanical breakdowns, and most of the interviewees were welcoming, kind and genuinely happy to share their stories. No-one threw Darren and James off their property or let their dogs loose or reacted negatively to any of the questions.

Narratively, conflict needed to exist but it was ethically-difficult terrain, particularly if the conflict needed to be manufactured by me. It was a difficult issue and one that would not be solved for some years.

Ultimately, the fundamental mistake of the pilot had been a confusion between structure and stylistic approach. Unlikely Travellers had a broad three-act structure built around a journey and its stylistic approach involved, among other things, lots of ‘following’. The concept had lent itself to an inbuilt structure and the structure demanded an appropriate stylistic approach. By contrast, the new show did not have an inbuilt structure or clear journey from the outset, nor did it have strong and defined character goals and ongoing conflict. I went straight for the stylistic approach of ‘following’ before I had any sense of where we were all going.

4.5 THE STYLISTIC A PPROACH

The stylistic approach to a narrative is normally devised after concept and structure have been put in place. Through style, an audience is shown the world

95

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

through a ‘specific perspective’: it’s the ‘way the writer and the director, working together, interpret the world for us’ (Seger 2003: 211). On the scripted page, a fast-paced, dialogue-heavy style alerts its reader to a particular tone and genre.

The direction of a film, conveying those words onto the screen (and the tone and genre they encapsulate), means adopting a stylistic approach that consists of two broad questions: ‘where to put the camera’ and ‘what to tell the actors’ (Mamet

1991: 1).

Following characters around (‘where to put the camera’) and minimal instruction to the participants (‘what to tell the actors’) was the broad stylistic approach of

Unlikely Travellers. This approach had given the disabled participants a voice: they spoke often, sometimes unpredictably, and I rarely interrupted them. Their honesty and openness in interviews was best served by my silence; their behaviour in real situations did not need blocking. I had good reason to adopt this approach for the mystery tour and I was not prepared to abandon it after the failure of the pilot. What was needed was not a change of stylistic approach but a return to structure.

4.6 A RETURN TO STRUCTURE: YOWIES, BIG CATS

AND ‘BELONGING’

The second block of filming – covering the episodes ‘Yowie’ and ‘Big Cat’ – sought to address the structural problems inherent in the ‘Min Min Lights’ pilot.

This time, well in advance of filming, significant research was undertaken in order

96

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

to enhance inner goals, thematic content and subtext, build some sense of cause- and-effect into the episode, and find a satisfying and more meaningful climax.

Preliminary discussions with witnesses and experts on both phenomena -- in person, by phone and via email -- revealed a consistency of themes and potential narrative arcs: most had suffered ridicule for talking about what they’d witnessed and what they believed in; and many had been ostracised, laughed at and ignored, some by members of their own families. This research transformed the episodes into something other than the basic solving of the mysteries: the search for the yowie became a reflection on ‘being different’, while finding the big cat was about ‘belonging’. With these thematic ideas in place, I encouraged Darren and

James to include them within their questions and to reflect on their own experiences of difference and belonging.

This was a significant deviation from the initial approach: I had moved away from letting them ‘roam free’ to a more structured narrative that enabled both them and

I to control where it was heading. Using the ‘tools of the dramatist’ (Booth 1996:

250), I had reinterpreted the material into what I hoped would be a ‘more readable, coherent text’ (245). As before, interviews were pre-arranged and, though Darren and James had been given guidance and direction in constructing their questions, they were largely left to their own devices as to what they asked and how they conducted themselves. A good producer ensures that those involved in the production have ‘the necessary support and guidance to enable

[them] to function in a collaborative and creative manner’ (Jeffrey 1995: 170) so

97

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

that all the talent ‘blends into a single consciousness’ (Christopher Nolan, quoted in Rabiger 2008: 5).

Prior to filming, we arranged for former ABC Radio journalist Rod Henshaw to take both Darren and James through a thorough, hands-on interview workshop, teaching them the fundamentals of interviewing techniques and the importance of listening to, and constructing, questions around an interviewee’s answers, thereby encouraging a sense of cause-and-effect and linear progression. Such momentum had been missing from their previous interviews, particularly for James, who rarely deviated from the list of questions he’d pre-prepared, regardless of the answers.

Many writers on disability arts complain of the ‘poor training’ opportunities available to disabled people (Mulhern 1997: 130), claiming they are ‘often disempowered, if not excluded by arts training’ (Barnes, Mercer et al. 1999: 207).

This results in a lack of expertise and experience which, in turn, leads to their failure to reach mainstream audiences (Pointon 1997a: 110-12). Addressing this imbalance would presumably mean encouraging more engagement and involvement with experienced practitioners, many of whom are likely to be non- disabled. But quite a number of disability writers prefer an exclusively disabled approach where disabled artists ‘develop their own art, in environments controlled by themselves’ (Barnes, Mercer et al. 1999: 207, see also Sutherland 1997: 20).

This approach is further complicated by those who want to ‘avoid imposing a non-disabled view of quality’, allowing for and excusing poor quality art because

98

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

of ‘limiting factors’ such as ‘recognising the process in which people are engaged, the struggle against barriers involved in getting there, and the context in which work is presented’ (Pick 1992: 18-20, see also Barnes, Mercer et al. 1999: 207).

In contrast, I propose a collaborative approach that builds ‘partnership and alliance’ between disabled and non-disabled people (Shakespeare 2006: 187), allowing experienced, non-disabled practitioners to teach and inspire disabled people to express their voices in creative works of quality.

Two episodes (approximately 26 minutes each) were constructed from 14 days of filming and some 15 interviews in the Blue Mountains, Sydney and Canberra.

Structure, particularly in terms of momentum and cause-and-effect, internal and external goals, and resolution, were improved. Knowing that sighting both the yowie and the big cat was a massive improbability, the resolution was this time structured around the underlying theme of the episodes (‘belonging’ and ‘being different’). Not solving the mysteries became a narrative choice for Darren and

James, whose own fears, experiences and reflections mirrored those of the enigma they were chasing: they decided the yowie would be imprisoned and exploited if they found it, and the cat would be shipped away to a place to which it didn’t belong. So neither needed to be solved for the climax to satisfy. But many problems remained -- and others had been created by a more deliberate enforcement of structure. Chief among these was contrivance: not the existence of it, for this had improved the structure of the narrative, but rather its treatment within the narrative. Although a number of the set pieces worked to some degree

99

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(setting up a net for the yowie, leaving milk out for the big cat), and had narrative relevance, many were heavy-handed and appeared forced. Even though most of them were the result of collaboration between Darren, James and myself, these set-ups appeared manipulated, exposed my hand as director and weakened the suspension of disbelief, making the narrative seem driven by someone other than the protagonists. Significantly, the set pieces that worked best were the ones that happened to ‘go wrong’: a contrived set-up of Darren and James hiding in bushland to find the yowie became funny and engaging when James’ foot fell asleep; and Darren’s accidental breakage of a toy mouse during their search for the cat led to some amusing interplay between him and James. Ultimately the best contrivances were that which led to the greatest spontaneity.

Structurally, there remained a significant problem with the show: the underlying purpose of Darren and James’ mystery-solving trek was still weak and unmotivated. Introducing the themes of ‘belonging’ and ‘difference’ had improved their personal, inner journeys but the overall goal of the mystery tour – to help people ‘move on with their lives’ – lacked specificity, clarity and measurability. Most of all, the goal to help people was not in response in any call for help: missing from Darren and James’ story was what Joseph Campbell terms the ‘call to adventure’ (Vogler 1999: 99). This call is a force that energises the protagonist, pulls them out of the stasis of their ‘ordinary world’ and gets ‘the story rolling’ (99). There was no such call for Darren and James, no stirring within, no demand or message for help; and no real sense of their world before

100

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

they took up the challenge to solve mysteries. Without such a call, an audience’s ability or desire to care is limited: without good reason for this journey, why bother taking it? Why did it matter whether they succeeded or failed? And what, if anything, was at stake if they didn’t achieve their self-imposed goal? If the stakes aren’t high enough, ‘if the hero doesn’t risk something we care about, the story fails’ (Epstein 2002: 46). This was no longer a structural problem that could be fixed by re-editing or reworking the existing material: I had to go back and fix the concept.

4.7 REVISITING THE CONCEPT: MALCOLM AND

THE NARRATOR

When I was initially working through the mystery tour concept with Darren and

James, I had contacted a former ABC-TV commissioning editor to ask his thoughts. He loved Unlikely Travellers but he didn’t think the new show would work unless there was a story device that allowed an audience to laugh – otherwise it could be seen as exploiting and ‘laughing at’ their naiveté and innocence. He had suggested that Darren and James send tapes home to their families, who would laugh along at their antics and respond to their adventures ‘in a sympathetic and positive way’. Now that I was revisiting the concept, I remembered this advice, not because I thought the existing episodes would appear exploitative to an audience but because the idea of sending tapes back to someone could be a great structural device. I didn’t see enough story potential in having

101

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

their families receive the tapes: it needed to be a character who had a goal of his/her own and who could create additional conflict through interactions with the travelling mystery-solvers. I talked to Darren and James about the idea: Darren didn’t understand why they couldn’t be solving mysteries ‘just for fun’. James, on the other hand, seemed more attuned to the problem: he mentioned The X-Files and its ongoing narrative about Mulder’s sister and the Government conspiracy, which weaved through many episodes. Maybe, in a similar way, they could have been sent by a secret intelligence group? Clandestine political plots seemed a bit far-fetched for the tone of the material we’d shot but James was on the right track: it got me thinking about some sort of mysterious figure pulling the strings, a kind of Charlie guiding his ‘Angels’. But the motivation and the set-up needed to be simple, not convoluted; the kind that could be explained over the opening credits before each episode. And it needed to be a bit silly, too, to fit with the comic nature of the work. I thought immediately of a guy called Malcolm Bebb.

Malcolm had appeared briefly in Unlikely Travellers and was a very funny, articulate and uninhibited forty-something man who had a mild intellectual disability. I had desperately wanted him to go to Egypt but the panel who selected the final six didn’t include him (mainly because of his poor physical health at the time). He had a great screen presence and honesty and I had wanted to use him in something else when the time and the part was right. It now seemed like that time. Initially I thought Malcolm could play a character who was searching for his missing girlfriend: he’d previously talked about his real girlfriend, who had

102

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

been ‘locked up’ by government health authorities, and I thought this could be an interesting mix of the real and the fictional. But it didn’t make sense for Darren and James to be stopping along the way to solve mysteries when their main goal was to find Malcolm’s girlfriend. The solution to previous conceptual problems had ultimately come from within the characters themselves and this one needed to come from Malcolm. He was living with his brother Gordon at the time after a

12-month stint on Lindeman Island, where he’d worked as a kitchen-hand. I remember Gordon telling me about the dilemma of moving Malcolm’s ‘stuff’ back to Brisbane: he loved printed materials of any kind – brochures, coasters, junk mail – and he would keep it all in his room in big plastic bags. He had about

10 to 12 massive bags by the time he’d finished on the island. Malcolm told me he didn’t care about the writing or the content: he just liked the pictures.

Inadvertently, I had stumbled upon Malcolm’s goal: he would be a writer who was writing a book about mysteries. He’d find a pair of investigators (Darren and

James) in the Yellow Pages and hire them to go out and do his research. It seemed like a workable concept: Malcolm’s motivation to write the book would be financially-driven; in real life, he always talked about winning the lotto and making millions. Writing this book was his quest for those millions: it was his

‘lotto’. As the new structural anchor of the series, Malcolm’s goal would give shape and momentum to the story. He would monitor Darren and James’ progress from his home base and their frequent conversations back and forth would add humour, insight and subtext. Conflict would come from Malcolm’s frustration

103

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

with his researchers and their inability to solve anything, as well as additional conflicts within Malcolm’s fictional domestic life, including a jealous disabled neighbour and a violent carer.

I pitched the concept to Malcolm and he was very enthusiastic: not being selected to go to Egypt had been a big disappointment for him and he said he was looking forward to being in a TV show, even though he had never been in one before. On set, he kept reminding me that this was his first time and he was ‘a bit slow’. We used Darren and James’ new house – they’d moved since we filmed the pilot – as

Malcolm’s fictional home base. This made it easy for Darren and James to be on set and it also suited the location. I had done an outline of the new pilot, which would intertwine the existing Boulia footage with Malcolm’s material: it was not scripted as such but certain specific lines were required for the narrative to work.

Malcolm was a great screen presence and he improvised brilliantly but it was difficult to get the lines I needed. Like Darren and James, he was not an experienced or trained actor and he had trouble remembering and delivering scripted lines. He also struggled with basic direction: he would repeatedly look at the camera and would often yell ‘cut’ when he felt he had nothing more to say. To his credit, though, he was a joy to work with and any frustrations caused by his inexperience were balanced by a willingness to improvise and engage with the narrative. In the edit suite, I realised I didn’t have enough usable footage to make the narrative work, particularly Malcolm’s introduction and the transitions between scenes.

104

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Intuitively, I thought voice-over narration might solve the problem, filling in the narrative gaps and providing additional opportunities for comedy. Intuitions help

‘get below your preconceived ideas and access your deepest resources’, recognising and rejecting ‘pedestrian and obvious and clichéd choices’ (Weston

1996: 5-6). I’d used a voice-over approach on a short film three years earlier, turning a dull 19-minute piece into a brisk, fast-paced, seven-minute one, all with the help of an absurd French narration. The film made it into Tropfest, ‘one of the world’s largest short film festivals’ (McLean 2006: 13), and I won an award for

Best Screenplay (McLean 2006a: 19). This time I thought I’d go with a pompous, condescending BBC-style read that would feel out-of-place, its seriousness sharply contradicting the ridiculous nature of the commentary and the situation.

Initially, I did not see this approach as a weakening of our collaborative efforts; indeed, I saw it as my obligation to intervene for the improvement of the narrative. Writers on collaboration with intellectually-disabled people insist that a lack of verbal fluency, vocabulary, and literal modes of expression require an editor to ‘play a fuller part’ in transforming stories to text (Booth 1996: 242). To this end, I wrote and recorded the voice over without input from Darren, James and Malcolm.

The resulting edit did not impress: my principal supervisor Geoff Portmann, the former head of comedy for ABC-TV (Australia), and an experienced colleague of mine from Los Angeles both said broadcasters in their respective countries

‘would not touch it’. They said the new approach had stripped Darren, James and

105

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Malcolm of their voices, blurring the line between ‘laughing at’ and ‘laughing with’. Instead of merely ‘filling gaps’, the narration took on a life and a voice of its own, often at the expense of Darren, James, Malcolm and the interviewees. In doing so, it tried too hard to be funny, forcing comic moments instead of letting them happen. Collaboration comes unstuck if a researcher imposes his own preconceptions on the data and seeks only to fit the narrative to a predetermined outcome (Booth 1996: 246). I had fixed some structural problems with the new approach but, in doing so, I had created others. I had lost sight of my objectives.

There was nowhere to go but back to the conceptual drawing board.

4.8 CHANGING THE FORMAT

The decision to make a six-part series was based on what I considered to be the dominant preferences of Australian broadcasters and commissioner editors, many of whom I had met while I was spruiking Unlikely Travellers at various film and television conferences. Initially I found it almost impossible to find consistency in what was preferred: SBS-TV were looking for three one-hours, ABC-TV drifted between three and six half-hours, commercial networks wanted long- running (13 to 26 parts) series, and overseas buyers sought everything else in between. When I finally concluded that six parts was the best format to pitch, an executive in a beret told me over a beer: ‘Four is the new six’. Even though

Unlikely Travellers ultimately ended up as three half-hours on ABC-TV, I always saw Darren and James as a six or 13-part half-hour series. This became a given

106

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

in the conceptual and structural design and it never occurred to me that a new format might work better and resolve the problems I was grappling with.

In all its incarnations, from nine half-hours to three one-hours to three half-hours,

I had always believed the best version of Unlikely Travellers was the contained,

101-minute feature-length version. From a structural and storytelling perspective, it had hit all the marks and won the IF Award for Best Documentary Feature.

Perhaps the Darren and James concept needed this approach too. A feature- length format, running no more than 120 minutes and no less than 70, would require massive restructuring, significant reshooting and a whole new conceptual and stylistic approach – but it would better serve the objectives of the project.

Based on previous experience, I knew that the selection and exhibition of a feature film at any of the key international film festivals was the best way to find a sales agent and/or distributor and, ultimately, the widest possible audience (either theatrically or through television broadcast sales).

The first step in rebuilding the narrative as a feature film was to focus on what had worked so far: although the failed voice-over episode with Malcolm had missed the mark on many levels, the structure had improved by building the narrative around him at home. He provided a backbone and a foundation for the unfolding interviews and events and he was an engaging and likeable character with unique screen presence. A new feature-length structure needed him at its centre: it would be his story. But containing Malcolm within his domestic setting was too limiting: he needed to be able to interact with others more directly, particularly

107

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Darren and James, to initiate and encourage conflict. Not only would this broaden the narrative possibilities but it had real potential for interesting and insightful interaction.

I had made several mock-documentaries as a film student, two of which were about the struggle of making films. It’s been done frequently in documentary form (Lost in La Mancha), fictional narratives (Shadow of the Vampire) and fictional constructs pretending to be documentaries (American Movie and The

Blair Witch Project). On more than one occasion, people who’d followed the controversy about my PhD told me the making of the show would probably be far more interesting than the show itself. At the time, it was a back-handed compliment that I didn’t disagree with. Now, searching for a concept that would pull everything together into a contained, feature-length bundle, it seemed like a workable idea: incorporating the real and ongoing struggles of making the Darren and James show could provide the underlying structural foundation of the narrative as well as meaningful subtext about disability issues, comedy, representation, over-protection and inclusion. Instead of writing a book, Malcolm would play a film director who was trying to make the Darren and James television show. We’d incorporate all the best bits we’d already shot, hire actors to play Malcolm’s crew, and build a fictional structure around the crazy, unique journey we’d all been on for three years. Down Under Mystery Tour: The Movie was born.

108

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

I consulted with Darren and James only after I’d formulated the new narrative: they were both frustrated that their show had yet to air on TV and had been texting and calling me for many months to complain. ‘What’s going on?’ and

‘You’re a slack arse’ were among their texts. When I told them that the feature concept would be much easier to sell, could reach more people and would be finished sooner than a 13-part series, they liked the idea and were ready to start filming again.

4.9 THE FEATURE FILM

I was mindful at the outset that a significant reworking of both concept and structure would fail the objectives of the project if I ignored the input of my disabled collaborators: their voices needed to be heard. But this also meant acknowledging their lack of expertise in the craft of storytelling, a limitation not symptomatic of disability. Indeed, if I was making a biopic about my dad, it’s not likely I’d be looking solely to him for the conceptual, structural and stylistic approaches: these are skills I’ve spent more than 10 years trying to master.

Disability studies writers who want disabled people to express themselves through narratives rarely consider the importance of improving their expertise in storytelling; many seem to believe that disabled people can work it out for themselves (without learning from non-disabled practitioners) and, if they can’t and their narratives are poor and don’t reach anyone, they either use excuses to justify their failure or blame the broadcasters (if they’re able attract one) for unfair

109

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

programming. Others critique the very idea of formulated narratives and mainstream approaches, wanting the empowerment of the disabled to come from disabled artists ‘developing their own art in environments controlled by themselves’ (Pick 1992: 18-20, see also Cribb in Barnes 1999: 207).

Building a new concept and structure for Down Under Mystery Tour meant acknowledging all of our strengths and weaknesses as collaborators. My strengths in storytelling demanded that I continue to drive the process while maintaining a thorough interaction with, and knowledge of, my collaborators and the characters they would play; their hopes, dreams, passions and fears. As the main protagonist, Malcolm’s story would drive the narrative, so his goals – both external and internal – needed to have clarity, meaning and achievability. But, above all, they needed to come from him. I asked Malcolm what sort of TV show he’d make if he had unlimited resources and he said: ‘something with girls in it’.

This became the main goal of the fictional Malcolm: to make a TV show ‘with girls in it’. The concept of the narrative flowed from there, largely drawn from elements of Malcolm’s real life; he’d be making this show so that his ‘real’ brother Gordon and his ‘real’ deceased mother would be proud of him. All of the other characters would ultimately serve to obstruct this goal: the producer who wanted to use disabled people instead of the girls to attract more funding; the sound guy who wanted to turn it into soft-porn; the activist who wanted to protect

‘the disabled’ and shut it down; and Darren and James themselves, who wanted to solve mysteries but stood between Malcolm’s dream show and his reality. It was

110

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

important that each of these characters not only had their own internal and external journeys but that these goals played against Malcolm’s grand plan, thereby generating obstacles, conflict and complications.

Moreover, a contained, closed structure allowed for goals that could be more easily defined and resolved, enabling thematic content to be explored more effectively. A movie’s theme ‘gives us a reason why we should care’ (Epstein

2002: 53), it’s an ‘insight into how our world works and how our lives work’

(Seger 2003: 95), a reason for ‘all the fuss and bother’ (Walter 1988: 65). McKee

(1998) says the establishment of clear goals and the resolution of those goals locate a film’s theme, which he calls the ‘controlling idea’ (144). Instead of applying broad, vague descriptions of theme, a controlling idea forces meaning to be communicated by whether the goal is achieved and why it is (or isn’t) achieved. A film’s theme isn’t about ‘belonging’, ‘difference’, ‘love’ and ‘hope’; it’s derived from an end value and a cause for that value -- the boy gets the girl because he learns to be a better person or the man wins the contest because he is honest. My previous thematic exploration of ‘belonging’ didn’t actually say anything about belonging, except allowing Darren and James to ponder over its meaning. The imposition of a controlling idea forced more defined thinking:

‘Darren seeks to belong and fit in, but he fails, realising instead that not belonging makes him unique’. Accordingly, James’ search for a girlfriend was not a theme about ‘love’ or ‘sexuality and disability’; it was driven by a controlling idea that

‘James seeks a girlfriend and fails because he realises that he doesn’t need

111

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

someone else to feel complete’. Applied to all the characters, meaningful thematic content became ingrained in individual goals and their attainment.

I discussed the new concept often with Darren, James and Malcolm, who were each a great sounding board in their own way. Malcolm said he ‘couldn’t care less’ about the plot, as long as he got to meet some nice girls on set; James texted me frequently to find out what mystery was next, sometimes offering suggestions of where we could go; and Darren took it all very seriously, constantly wanting to know when it would be on TV so he could tell his friends at the club. I was comforted and humbled by the fact that Darren would always pull me back into line when my wild plot ideas went off track. When I told him I was thinking of introducing a hitch-hiking dwarf character that he and James would pick up in the mystery van, he turned to me with a very serious expression on his face and said:

‘It’s getting a bit silly, isn’t it?’.

The new concept and structure took several months to develop. At the end of this process, I had constructed a very detailed outline which was broken into scenes. I consciously avoided using a script format and resisted writing lines of dialogue, unless I had something very specific in mind to move the narrative to the next scene. This loose but thorough spreadsheet approach gave a strong sense of the plot’s momentum and tracked the narrative arcs of each of the characters. It enabled the next steps to begin: consideration of the stylistic approach in more detail and serious pre-production, including casting and location scouting.

112

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

The introduction of new characters to the narrative required the recruitment of additional actors. There were four or five significant roles that needed to be filled and I wanted to use experienced, trained actors for these parts. I knew that such actors would greatly assist in shaping and controlling the improvised scenes with

Malcolm, Darren and James. Improvisation is an ‘unstructured, exploratory’ approach that requires ‘freedom and trust’ to work (Weston 1996.: 264).

Malcolm’s best performance in the material we’d shot had occurred when he improvised with a trained actor playing his carer: he was more relaxed and convincing, and the actor successfully kept him on track by guiding him to where the scene needed to go. The trained actors for these additional parts did not need to be non-disabled: indeed, the project’s goal to ‘give voice’ might have been strengthened if I had been able to cast disabled people in all of the roles. But this was not possible. I contacted an arts-focused disability group for actors, as well as other non-disabled acting agencies, and ended up auditioning around 20 people of varying experience, some with disabilities and some without. Only one disabled person was suitable – David, who would play ‘The Assassin’ – with the remaining parts filled by trained, non-disabled actors who had the experience, look, demeanour and approach that was required.

The stylistic approach of the initial Boulia episode had largely appropriated the codes and conventions of documentary practice: a ‘following’ camera and minimal direction and manipulation in the style of observational documentary, the foundations of which are rooted in the direct cinema and cinema verite

113

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

movements. These approaches favour non-intervention by the filmmaker and seek to convey an unobtrusive, uninterrupted and unmediated view of the world that frames the viewer as voyeuristic spectator and observer: ‘the space gives every indication of having been carved from the historical world rather than fabricated as a fictional mise-en-scene.’ (Nichols 1991: 38, see also Thompson

2007, Roscoe and Hight 2001).

The new feature film concept and structure of Down Under Mystery Tour had clearly and significantly shifted the project from within the boundaries of such an observational approach; there was now manipulation, interference, scripting, fictional characters and constructed mise-en-scene. It now seemed more appropriately situated within the realms of mock-documentary, which appropriates the aesthetics of documentary to ‘create a fictional world’ (Lipkin,

Paget et al. 2006: 14). Such texts ‘look (and sound) like documentaries’, appropriating the codes and conventions of the genre to represent a fictional subject (Roscoe and Hight 2001: 1-2). The mock-documentary genre ‘mobilizes irony, either in the parody of the form of the documentary or in the satirical treatment or critique of an issue’ (Campbell 2007: 53). Like This Is Spinal Tap, the new approach to the project took a ‘benevolent or innocent appropriation of documentary aesthetics’, situating itself as a ‘parody mockumentary’ that was more interested in the satirizing the content (broader issues of disability) than the underlying objectivity and codes of documentary-making (Roscoe and Hight

2001: 73).

114

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

But Down Under Mystery Tour was further complicated by the fact that not everything was constructed and not all of the participants were clearly fictional, or would be perceived to be fictional by a potential audience. There were ‘real’ interviews with the disabled actors about their ‘real’ lives, constructed interviews with the disabled actors about clearly fictional matters (ie. killing Darren and

James), improvised scenes between actors (disabled and non-disabled), interviews between Darren and James and ‘real’ witnesses to mysterious phenomena, and constructed interviews between Darren and James and ‘fake’ witnesses (in which

Darren and James themselves were being ‘real’). Unlike This Is Spinal Tap, in which it is pointedly obvious that the characters are playing fictional characters with heightened, exaggerated personalities, it was unclear in Down Under

Mystery Tour who was ‘real’ and who wasn’t, who had a ‘disability’ and who didn’t, and who was ‘normal’ and who wasn’t. Such a lack of clarity was not problematic: indeed, it aligned with the grander objectives of highlighting misconception and prejudice, and deconstructing preconceived notions of normality and positivity. In this regard, the project appeared to have more in common with Borat (2007) than the works of Chris Guest (This is Spinal Tap,

Best In Show, Waiting for Guffman).

Borat creator Sasha Baron Cohen claims his ‘crude, loud, obnoxious, and in-your- face’ title character (Douglas Rushkoff, quoted in Campbell 2007: 59) was a mechanism for social critique: ‘by himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it’s anti-Semitism or an

115

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

acceptance of anti-Semitism’ (Cohen, quoted in Campbell 2007: 58). The film, which follows a fictional journalist from Kazakhstan on a quest across the USA, invites viewers ‘to ridicule the ‘real life’ behaviour of the individuals who are involved in the film’, and be a spectator ‘to the folly of others’, including narrow- minded and vulgar frat-boys, pro-Bush rodeo-goers and disengaged New Yorkers who don’t want to be disturbed on the subway (57-8). Although the mock- documentary ‘hoax’ is normally reserved for audiences who believe what they’re watching is real (Roscoe and Hight 2001), Borat instead takes aim at unsuspecting individuals who come into contact with the title character throughout the filmed journey. For some critics, this approach ruined the film’s broader goals of social critique: instead of asking an audience to reflect on the broader issues represented, they are instead encouraged ‘to ridicule the ignorance of the subject[s] of the prank’ (Campbell 2007: 57).

Such issues were indeed relevant for the re-conceived Down Under Mystery Tour.

While the characters of Malcolm, Darren and James were by no means Borat, their interaction with ‘real’ people necessitated a direction that would not take, nor be seen to take, a ‘gawk[ing] at idiots’ (57) approach. This was sometimes difficult to avoid, particularly in the quest for an entertaining narrative, and there are no doubt moments in the final film that favour such ‘gawking’ over those of deeper social value.

116

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

The example of Borat offered much for the new approach to the project, not least its unflinching embrace of mock-documentary conventions, its confronting blend of the ‘real’ and fictional, and its vigorous engagement of awkward and edgy comic moments. Though Down Under Mystery Tour would not scale its heights, nor plumb some of its depths -- scenes of ‘naked wrestling’ come immediately to mind (Campbell 2007: 57) -- it would indeed utilise the tools of mock- documentary to structure the narrative, blur the ‘real’ and the fictional for the purpose of entertainment and social critique, and create an unrestrained space for genuine, meaningful, humorous and potentially-awkward interactions between the disabled stars, the actors and the ‘real’ interviewees.

To this end, two broad stylistic approaches were decided upon in accordance with mock-documentary conventions: firstly, formal and informal interviews with the participants in which they would extrapolate on the constructed (fictional) elements of the narrative and, in certain circumstances, on real experiences. This approach, a staple of the documentary genre (though not the observational kind), would most directly empower the disabled voice by enabling the participants to speak freely and openly. The second broad approach would adhere to, and mimic, observational documentary conventions, capturing footage of characters going about ‘real’ and fictional interviews, engaging in ‘real’ and constructed scenarios, and acting within prescribed but improvised scenes with other characters. From a practical perspective, this stylistic approach – in particular, appropriating the documentary convention of rough, handheld footage – would not only ‘imply

117

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

realism’ (Shakespeare 1999: 169), but it would counter the disabled actors’ inexperience (allowing more takes at lower cost) and encourage more daring and credible improvisation. Both of these stylistic approaches worked under the guiding principle that everything was being filmed by an anonymous documentary crew, a concept applied to many ‘making of’ or ‘found footage’ mock- documentaries (Lavender-Smith 2009). This ‘guiding principle’ would not be enforced as overtly or strictly as in those of its predecessors, particularly ‘parodic- doc horror’ mock-documentaries like The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield

(Lavender-Smith 2009). While the ‘making of’ conceit in these films is applied rigidly, and often built explicitly and frequently into the narrative, Down Under

Mystery Tour would take a more liberal approach.

On closer analysis, it is unlikely that all of the coverage would pass a robust logic test, particularly some of the scenes involving the assassin and his carer. These might be considered a weakness by mock-documentary purists, and perhaps impact upon an audience’s suspension of disbelief, but the contraventions serve grander purposes of story and comedy and are not without precedent. Television works like Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development both adopt observational documentary techniques but experiment with narrative devices and coverage for the broad overall purpose of mining laughs: ultimately it’s read by an audience as ‘real’ (‘at least relative to other television’ (Thompson 2007: 71)) and that’s considered enough for the purposes of telling a comedic story. These programs are not constrained by the stylistic boundaries of genre, stepping outside

118

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

them whenever they see an opportunity to entertain, get a laugh and drive the story forward. Down Under Mystery Tour would take a similar approach.

The evolution in the concept and structure of Down Under Mystery Tour had now moved away from a stylistic approach of ‘following’ to one of construction and juxtaposition using the devices of mock-documentary: early Darren and James material was edited with film-set footage of Malcolm, which had been shot more than two years later and at locations more than 1000 kilometres apart. Mamet

(1991) favours narrative that is absolutely constructed by the planned and deliberate selection and positioning of shots, even if they’ve been shot days, weeks or years apart. Film isn’t ‘following actors around’; rather it’s ‘a succession of images juxtaposed so that the contrast between these images moves the story forward in the mind of the audience’ (2). He favours manipulation through shot selection and cutting over simply recording ‘what the protagonist did’.

Tighter structural control, contrivance, manipulation and juxtaposition had all worked to significantly improve the narrative and its accessibility to audiences. It had also worked to strengthen, clarify and articulate the journeys of my disabled collaborators, whose voices were now louder and clearer. But the complicated balance between reality and fiction, which now had ongoing significance within the narrative and the project as a whole, created new challenges for all of us. For the first time, the limitations of intellectual disability directly affected the process.

119

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

4.10 INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AND THE

FICTIONAL NARRATIVE

Many of the challenges I faced in the conception and construction of the narrative are the same for collaborative filmmaking that doesn’t involve disabled people.

They are common problems and struggles, encountered daily by industry professionals across the world. What Malcolm, Darren and James could not offer in the building of the narrative related specifically to their lack of expertise in storytelling rather than their intellectual disabilities.

But there was one significant area in which intellectual disability had an impact on the creative and production process: negotiating and differentiating between reality and the fiction of the narrative. This had not been an issue on Unlikely

Travellers because reality and the narrative were aligned. But Down Under

Mystery Tour had many fictional constructs that lessened the ability of the actors to express themselves and led to instances of confusion and confrontation.

4.11 FICTION V REALITY

The alignment between reality and the narrative of Unlikely Travellers not only softened my approach to structure but it also raised my expectations of what intellectually-disabled people were capable of expressing. All of the characters,

Darren and James included, demonstrated openness, honesty and a lack of inhibition that surprised me -- and made the film what it was. They talked of their

120

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

dreams, doubts, fears and anxieties with little prompting, sometimes within the solitary confines of their ‘diary cam’ set-up. On one occasion I had to ask a participant to be less forthcoming because she was regularly divulging sensitive and confronting personal information that I knew I couldn’t use in the final edit.

It was a rare dilemma.

I mistakenly assumed that this depth and detail of expression would translate directly to the mystery tour concept. But it did not. Unlikely Travellers was constructed around a very real and tangible experience: for many of the participants, it was the pursuit of a lifelong dream. None had been to Egypt, some had never travelled overseas. Darren and James both had internal and external goals to fulfil and they more or less achieved these goals. No imagination was required and no acting was needed for them to express real and honest emotion.

The mystery tour concept, on the other hand, lacked these tangible, achievable goals. Solving the mysteries was an improbability and Darren and James were both aware of this: the travelling was fun and the journey itself was an adventure but gathering information about mystical creatures and strange lights could not compare with actually seeing the Great Pyramids or the Sphinx for the first time.

As a result, it was very difficult to extract the same level of genuine passion or excitement from them, or to capture feelings of disappointment and failure when the mysteries eluded them. When I asked James how he felt about failing to solve anything, hoping he might reveal deeper feelings about wanting to prove himself and be noticed in the world, he smiled from ear to ear and said he was ‘sad and

121

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

disappointed’. He said this repeatedly between spontaneous laughter for the next

20 minutes, regardless of how I phrased the question. It didn’t matter how I asked it because, to him, failing meant nothing. There was nothing at stake in not solving the mysteries: we just went on to the next one, booked into a new motel, drank beer and ate food. There was no alignment between the reality of the trip and the fiction of the film’s journey.

Solving this problem meant incorporating elements of Darren and James’ realities into the fictional journey. Darren had loved the attention that Unlikely Travellers brought him; he told me he was often stopped on the train or at shopping centres and asked if he was ‘that guy’ from the TV. Occasionally he’d go into the ABC

Shop in the city, take a copy of the show up to the counter and see if the staff would recognise him. If they didn’t, he’d soon tell them who he was and they’d shower him with compliments. Fame meant something to him because it made him feel like the centre of attention and he loved that. No longer was he the uncoordinated guy with a speech impediment who’d get thrown off buses for appearing drunk. He was important: a somebody. Building ‘fame’ into his journey enabled him to express real and genuine emotion, to talk about what it really felt like to have a stranger ask for his autograph. James’ journey was more complicated. From the outset, I don’t believe he ever really cared much about the solving of the mysteries. It was about being with other people who were his friends: Darren, me, the crew. He texted all of us (including the sound guy) on a weekly basis, even after we’d stopped filming. He still texts me to ask when the

122

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

next mystery tour is, even though he knows the filming is finished. It’s his way of saying ‘when are we all hanging out again?’. His journey was about finding companionship, not just a girlfriend, but people who wanted to be, and enjoyed being, his friends. When I asked him about these things, he was genuine, real and emotive. No acting, no imagination required.

4.12 BLURRED LINES

The introduction of Malcolm and the new feature film concept inadvertently blurred the lines between reality and fiction in ways I did not plan or expect: sometimes this enhanced the narrative and other times it created tension and confrontation, which needed to be addressed. Malcolm is a loud, extroverted character and he was the focus of the majority of the last 20 days of filming, largely because his scenes had to be shot and added to what we had already done with Darren and James in the preceding months and years. This meant Malcolm became the centre of attention and he was both funny and very popular with the crew and new cast members. On one occasion, the sound guy said jokingly to

James that we were changing the name of the show to Malcolm’s Mystery Tour.

James struggles with sarcasm and subtle humour at the best of times and he did not react well to the throwaway line. Despite everybody’s reassurances, his concern about the title change stayed with him for many days.

I would often drive Darren and James home from the set and we’d discuss the day’s filming. They understood the new structure and direction of the show but

123

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

often required reassurance that they weren’t being left out. This wasn’t helped by

Malcolm, who would frequently complain that he had to do all the work while they just sat there: ‘I’ve got 25 words and they’ve only got five’, he’d say. Once, after a particularly busy day with several new actors on set, Darren turned to me in the car and said: ‘Wouldn’t it be good if it was just James and me again?’. It had been a long day and I remember being particularly short with him: I said ‘No- one would watch that show’. And he accepted that.

Even though Darren and James both understood the new concept, the storyline and the fictional characters that came with it, the segmented, non-chronological nature of filming -- and the lack of context this often created -- proved challenging. This is not a problem that’s exclusive to the intellectually-disabled: people who visit film sets with little or no experience in film-making often struggle to understand how all the pieces will eventually come together to create a cohesive narrative. But the problem, particularly for Darren, was that the subject matter involved him personally and he was affected by isolated moments without consideration of the broader narrative within which they fitted. This was indeed the case for the character of Warren and his outrageous opinions about disabled people. Darren had met and interacted with the actor playing Warren for many days prior to this interview: he understood the character, that he was ignorant and cruel, and that his journey had a purpose within the narrative. Darren had even compared him to a bully he himself had encountered at school, who had been hit and killed by a car; a story he recounted with uncharacteristic glee. But looking

124

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

on as Warren spoke freely of his disdain for the disabled, Darren was upset and unimpressed, and took much convincing and reassurance before we could continue with the interview. I considered briefly whether or not I should have removed him from set for that and more of Warren’s scenes but that would have contradicted the objectives of the project: after all, he was my collaborator and he would eventually have to watch the finished film. I reminded him of Warren’s purpose within the narrative, and explained that his comments were not meant to sit comfortably with anyone. Indeed, even I had cringed at some of his improvised remarks. I asked Darren to trust me, just as all actors must trust their directors to some degree -- and he said he would.

A similar but heightened situation arose on the penultimate day of filming, which happened to be the most expensive, exhausting and challenging day of the entire shoot. I had arranged for two well-known Australian actors, John Jarratt and Alan

David Lee, to play the ‘fake’ Darren and James. The most important scene of the day was their over-the-top introduction by the river bank, which was intended to highlight the ridiculousness of actors playing disabled people and how this affected Darren and James. I went to great lengths to ensure that everybody understood the nature of the scene, particularly Darren and James, who seemed rather chuffed that ‘celebrities’ were playing them. Darren had seen John Jarratt in McLeod’s Daughters and he was particularly starstruck. But the reality of this performance and its isolation out of context proved too much for him. He was initially furious at Jarratt’s mimicry of James and said he did not want it to

125

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

continue. Of course, this is every director’s worst nightmare and, ethically, I did not want it to continue either if he was uncomfortable. We stopped filming and talked about it at length; John Jarratt reiterated that he was ‘playing it up’ for a reason, and eventually Darren understood its purpose in the overall film. Indeed, he later expressed his emotions about the scene in an interview that was used in the finished film.

Malcolm, too, was not immune from the blurring of the reality and fiction divides, although his confusion was less confronting and less difficult to address. In the motel scene, in which he and Warren were looking through headshots of potential blondes, the outline called for Malcolm to ring up some talent agencies and ask if they could send out some girls. Of course, they were all meant to refuse and simply hang up. But Malcolm took it upon himself to alter the narrative and, in take after take, he would continue the conversation with the fictional talent agent long after he was supposed to hang up: ‘Great, they’re coming then?’, he’d say.

‘Two girls. Great. See you tomorrow.’ I would remind him that the girls were not coming, that they were never coming and he would respond: ‘But I want them to come’. It took some time and some convincing before he accepted that the narrative had to work that way: he only complied when I promised him that two blonde girls would eventually come to the set.

While these situations proved problematic and challenging, requiring time and sensitivity to address, other collisions between reality and fiction enhanced the narrative beyond my expectations. Among these was the relationship between

126

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Malcolm, and Darren and James. When Malcolm arrived on set for the first time, there was immediate tension between them. This was due in part to the fact that we were shooting in Darren and James’ house and Malcolm was the ‘new’ main character: he was on their turf, both domestically and creatively, and he immediately made his presence felt. He wasn’t backward in coming forward, would often ask for coffee and food, and would smoke inside until Darren told him otherwise. Jokes about the show being renamed in Malcolm’s favour didn’t help, nor did Malcolm’s complaints that he was doing all the work. Other issues added to the tension. Malcolm took a liking to the actor playing Simone (her name was Jo) and he was very attentive towards her: he’d often ask me on the way to the location if she was going to be there that day. This ultimately led to conflict with Darren, who is an affectionate and friendly guy and would often greet women he’d just met with a boisterous hug and kiss: it was always reciprocated with great warmth and never really bothered anyone. But it bothered

Malcolm when he kissed Jo and he voiced his concerns to me on a number of occasions. Darren and James also expressed their frustrations about Malcolm

‘hanging around Jo’. On one occasion, when both Darren and James were off set for the day, I received a text from James: it said words to the effect of ‘make sure

Malcolm leaves Jo alone today’. They were all grown men and I saw no need to intervene in their harmless squabble. They weren’t being intellectually-disabled: they were being competitive, ego-driven men, trying to sort out who was in charge.

127

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

They became good friends as the shoot continued, even though Malcolm grew increasingly impatient with how long Darren and James would take to get a scene right. This culminated in one of my favourite moments of the film, which occurs when Darren and James confront Malcolm and ask if he is trying to kill them. My direction to Darren and James was simple: ‘approach Malcolm and ask if he is trying to kill you’. I didn’t give Malcolm anything: I just wanted him to wing it.

And he did. He went on for about 15 minutes about how much they annoyed him, why he’d never use them in the army if he was in the army, and what he’d do with their bodies once he’d killed them. At the end of it, immediately after I’d called cut, he turned to Darren and James and said in his most genuine voice: ‘You know

I’m only kidding, don’t you?’. Malcolm rang me recently to find out Darren and

James’ address so he could send them a Christmas card. He said: ‘Where do those knuckleheads live?’ and then he laughed.

The lesson of these experiences is one that resonates throughout this project: while intellectual disability sometimes impacted upon my collaborators’ ability to distinguish reality from fiction, many of the challenging situations arose from them simply being men, being actors and being individuals with egos, emotions, sensitivities and unique personalities. Unfortunately, not everyone in the community shared this view.

128

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

4.13 MANAGING EXTERNAL AGENDAS

It would be misleading to speak of this project, and to offer guidance and insight to filmmakers who choose to initiate projects about intellectual disability, without addressing the controversy that engulfed this work. The views, concerns, demands and agendas of external parties, some well-intentioned, presented great challenges to the completion of this project. Ultimately, some of these views were reflected in the narrative and thematic content of the creative work; they strengthened my resolve and the resolve of my collaborators; and they exposed the many misconceptions about intellectual disability that exist in mainstream society.

These misconceptions can be best summarised into three broad areas: that intellectually-disabled people all belong to a ‘disability community’, which diminishes their existence as individuals; that they cannot make decisions for themselves and are very easily exploited by others; and that they are not capable of being funny and knowing that they are.

4.14 INDIVIDUALS, NOT A ‘DISABILITY

COMMUNITY’

The notion of a ‘disability community’ is seen as a positive thing by many disability experts because it stresses ‘solidarity’, ‘self-empowerment’ and a

‘positive identification’ (Barnes and Mercer 2003: 102, see also Peters 2000:

129

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

593). It is a culture that unites and strengthens, demonstrating a pride in ‘the survival and self-organisation of disabled people’ (Barnes, Mercer et al. 1999:

208): ‘we are all bound together, not by [a] list of our collective symptoms but by the social and political circumstances that have forged us as a group’ (Linton

1998: 4).

However, other writers say there are dangers in the notion of a disability community: it ‘creates the mechanism by which society imposes its own notions of what a disability is and what a person with a disability is in accordance with this preconception of ‘the disabled’’ (Tracey 2007: np). Indeed, many disabled people do not want their own club or a separate culture that promotes their difference: they want and have a right to ‘an identity and a role in society defined by their humanity, rather than disparate abilities’ (Bank-Mikkelson 1976, see also

Wolfensburger 2000). They don’t see themselves as disabled and want access to a mainstream identity that doesn’t determine their ‘material prospects’ and ‘the character of their social relationships’ (Davies and Jenkins 1997: 95): ‘what is wrong with seeing yourself as a person with a disability, rather than a disabled person, or even identifying simply as a human being, or a citizen, rather than as a member of minority community? (Shakespeare and Watson, quoted in Rapley

2004: 140).

When the opinion piece criticising my project first appeared (MacLennan and

Hookham 2007), followed by a succession of newspaper, internet, radio and

130

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

television reports, I was surprised by the number of people who immediately enjoined Darren and James in the ‘disability community’. Their description as

‘intellectual disabled’ somehow diminished them as free-thinking, capable individuals and signed them up for membership of a club they didn’t ask to join: they were given ‘an intellectually-disabled identity’ whether they wanted it or not

(Rapley 2004: 113). In their criticisms of the project, some reached immediately for Charlton’s (1998: 3) ‘nothing about us without us’ proclamation (Kevin

Cocks, quoted in McLeish 2007; see also Lisa Bridle, quoted in Strong 2007b), perhaps missing the point that Darren and James -- co-writers, co-creators, and the show’s stars -- were (by their reasoning) part of the ‘us’. Others had very specific rules about who was part of the ‘disability club’ and who could speak on behalf of members. Todd Winther, a man with cerebral palsy, wrote in support of my work on a newspaper comments page (‘Todd Winther’, quoted in Griffith 2007). But his views were deemed irrelevant because he didn’t have an intellectual disability and, therefore, wasn’t part of the relevant ‘club’:

‘Todd, unfortunately you have a physical disability in cerebral palsy. This is not an intellectual disability. I hope everyone understands the difference. Intellectually disabled means that they do not understand the meaning or the context of things people say, have difficulty in socialising and often misconstrue what is being said because their brain is impaired’ (‘filmsdart’, quoted in Griffith 2007).

Thankfully, there was considerable rebuttal from Winther and others and, while the words of anonymous bloggers do not necessarily represent the majority, such narrow-minded views exist and cannot be dismissed.

131

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

A common criticism was that, as a filmmaker, I had not engaged with the

‘disability community’ before the commencement of filming (Kevin Cocks, quoted in McLeish 2007). This implies that the disability community is a formal organisation with a structure of governance and recognised spokespeople, which is not the case: ‘the public perception of a disabled community is generated by workers in the disability industry and is an illusion that describes their work issues and environment more than the real lives of people with disabilities’ (Tracey

2007: np).

It was impossible to avoid the outpouring of ignorance and contempt in the pages of the newspapers and on the internet, most of it from self-proclaimed members and leaders of the disability community. As much as I did not want Darren and

James to be drawn into the melee, they were grown men and they had every right to know what was being written about them. Darren and I had a long conversation about what people were saying. He said he didn’t want to be part of

‘the disability club’: he was his own man and he didn’t belong to a group of people who wanted to make decisions for him. He said: ‘They don’t speak for me.’

4.15 PROTECTING DISABLED PEOPLE

There has been a significant amount of research and debate about the protection of adults with intellectual disabilities and their ability to be independent and make decisions for themselves (Grisso and Appelbaum 1991 and 1998, Morris et al

132

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

1993). Under the umbrella of ‘the vulnerable’ (Goggin 2009: 5), people with intellectual disabilities have long been regarded as needing ‘to be looked after, or helped, as they lack the resources, ability or power to survive independently’ (3).

Protection policies covering all vulnerable adults, including intellectually-disabled people, were developed between 1998 and 2001 (Northway et al 2004). They were designed and implemented on the basis of various research studies indicating that intellectually-disabled people were at particular risk for various types of abuse (McCarthy and Thompson 1997). Avoiding such abuse presumably led to the need for others (carers, social workers, parents) to make decisions for disabled people so that they will not inadvertently put themselves in situations where they might be abused: ‘decision-making about risks is a complex process’ that can lead to ‘dangerous, sometimes life-threatening situations’ (Vallenga et al 2007: 261-

262). Such a view relies on the broad assumption that people who have intellectual disabilities are more vulnerable than others when it comes to making decisions because of their reduced capacity and generally-impaired cognitive functioning (Hickson and Khemka 1999).

The general view that people with disabilities cannot make decisions has been challenged by many individuals with disabilities (Weymeyer, quoted in Test et al

2005) and some studies have demonstrated that overprotection can have

‘unwanted and unintended consequences’ (Sanders 2006: 181), including ‘low self esteem, poor decision-making abilities and less personal control’ (187).

Some claim support structures should not intervene at all in the decision-making

133

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

of disabled people: ‘[they] are designed to empower a person to full capacity, not protect them from real and equal involvement in the world because of any incapacity (Tracey 2007: np). While there is ‘general agreement that [disabled] people should be enabled and encouraged to take decisions for themselves when possible’ (Murphy and O’Callaghan 2004: 1348), and ‘vulnerable adults are not children’ (Northway et al 2005: 29), some writers maintain that ‘independence should not be promoted dogmatically’ and the vulnerability of disabled people should be recognized (Fyson 2009: 23).

The ‘totalising, homogenising’ label of intellectual disability (Rapley 2004: 112), inspired and embraced by the notion of a disability community and a disabled identity, extended to Darren and James’ capacities and ability to function as human beings. Despite the fact that intellectual disability covers a broad spectrum of impairments, and there are varying degrees of impairment within each, the presumed identity of the ‘intellectually-disabled’ applies the same brush to all.

From the outset, in the very first opinion piece, Darren and James were assumed to be incapable of understanding what they were doing (MacLennan and

Hookham 2007). They ‘could not possibly understand the content of the interviews they were conducting’ (33), were ‘powerless’ (MacLennan 2007: np),

‘unable to defend themselves’ (Hookham 2007a: np, see also Carthage, quoted in

O'Reilly, 2007), ‘did not understand how they were being portrayed’ (Hookham

2007: np), were ‘set-up’ to appear ‘inept’ and clearly could not ‘have any

134

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

comprehension of what the min min phenomenon is at all’ (Hookham 2007: np).

Bloggers referred to Darren and James’ inability to ‘react to social cues’ (‘Stuart’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np), their failure to understand the ramifications of what they are doing’ (‘filmsdart’, quoted in Griffith 2007: np) and even proposed that they were ‘not fully equal to understanding what friendship should be’ (‘parents’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np). Despite the fact that both Darren and James work, independently run a household and have given many interviews in their film careers to date, critics preferred sweeping generalisations about intellectual disability to the actual facts of their individual lives:

‘Darren and James… do not work or run a business. They do not give interviews or issue press releases simply because they can’t’ (‘Gary MacLennan and John Hookham’, quoted in Curr 2007: np).

Indeed, they can and they do.

The lowest point of the controversy was an attempt by some to have the Adult

Guardian intervene in the decision-making of Darren and James’ lives, despite the fact that they were both legal adults and had supportive loved ones to help them if they needed it. In a posting to a student Myspace page, MacLennan (2007) rallied his comrades to ‘save the young disabled men from QUT’: ‘One of the foci of the campaign is to get the Adult Guardian to intervene to rescue the young men. She has the power to do it but seemingly will only act under pressure’ (np). The petitioned request for intervention by the Adult Guardian failed, as did similar

135

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

requests to the Minister for Education, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission, Minister for Disability and many others.

The assumptions about Darren and James’ vulnerability and worth as human beings, often made by those who had never met or seen them, extended to their ability to understand comedy and be funny.

4.16 DISABLED PEOPLE CAN BE FUNNY

In previous writings in disability studies, the relationship between disability and comedy has been viewed as a ‘mean-spirited’ one (Littlewood and Pickering

1998: 292, see also Albrecht 1999: 67) that inevitably makes disabled people the

‘butt’ of the jokes, often depicting them as laughable, bumbling, ‘dim-witted’ clowns (Enright 2002: 134, see also Norden 1994: 3, Wolfson 2000: 292-3,

Barnes 1992). It has seemed almost inconceivable that disabled people could be the ones telling the jokes, initiating comic moments and driving the humour.

Such prejudices extended to Darren and James and their ability to understand and engage in comedy. Some claimed they didn’t have the intelligence to ‘share in the humour’ (‘Stuart’, quoted in O'Reilly 2007: np) or ‘read between the lines of what makes people laugh’ (‘Atle Neilson’, quoted in Strong 2007c: np). It was never considered that Darren and James could actually be in control of the situations and the comedy: instead they were ‘some grotesque caricatured, cartoon characters’, presented to appear ‘buffoon-like’ and as ‘stooges for our amusement’

136

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

(Hookham 2007: np). It was a given to most people that every element of the show, as described by MacLennan and Hookham (2007), was constructed to

‘laugh at’ Darren and James (Hookham 2007: np) and ‘their doomed attempts to engage with people in incongruous situations, while oblivious of the fact that they were making themselves look stupid, and were not ‘in’ on the joke’ (‘tom’, quoted in Castles 2007: np).

The use of props was also deemed part of the ‘set-up’ (‘danicabs’, quoted in

Strong 2007a: np), despite the fact that props of all kinds are used by actors of all abilities in all types of films:

‘I certainly don't think that having two young disabled men running around interviewing people with a giant pencil or riding in a ‘Noddy’ car can be interpreted in any way as portraying them in a respectful (or even humorously respectful) manner’ (‘Pepsi’, quoted in Castles 2007: np).

A disabled person using a prop suddenly became exploitation with no regard for its purpose in the narrative: ‘The Chaser guys drive in a Noddy car - hilarious. A disabled person does...it's exploitation (‘Nick Oz’, quoted in Castles 2007: np).

The assumption is that disabled people don’t know what they’re doing: they’re just handed things and told what to wear. Even when actors are playing disabled people, props and clothing are seen by many as tools of belittlement: the wardrobe of the main characters in Forest Gump, Of Mice and Men and The Lawnmower

Man all serve to promote childlike simplicity – Lennie’s ‘massively baggy dungarees’ in Of Mice and Men look like ‘a giant romper suit’ and Jobe Smith’s

137

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

similar attire in The Lawnmower Man ‘create the impression of an overgrown baby’ (Kimpton-Nye 1997: 33-4). In Down Under Mystery Tour, despite the presumptions of many, the choice and presentation of props and wardrobe, including the painting of the van, the selection of James’ pen and Darren and

James’ outfits, were the collaborative decisions of the actors, co-creators, co- writers and filmmakers. They were decisions made as part of a constructed and cohesive comic narrative.

Even when some critics acknowledged that Darren and James might have the mental capacity to understand and willingly engage with the comedy, this was quickly deemed irrelevant in the context of the broader disability community:

‘even if they were happy to be filmed doing things which could be deemed ‘funny’ or ‘silly’… it remains to be considered whether they are able to fully appreciate how their desire to be viewed this way... may impact upon other disabled persons who might not feel the same way’ (‘Pepsi’, quoted in Castles 2007: np).

It became a vicious circle of dangerous and insulting presumed knowledge, which stripped Darren and James of their identities as funny, capable, articulate and independent men who have minds of their own. When some recognised their capacity to understand and have a sense of humour, their decisions were no longer their own but those representing a ‘community’. When their loved ones reiterated their support and backed Darren and James’ ability to decide for themselves, they were criticised for being criminally and morally negligent:

138

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

‘And the parents and guardians who gave permission for this horrorshow? In the US, they would be immediately stripped of any rights to care for the individual.. they clearly lack any ability to protect them from those who seek to exploit and harm them’ (‘RW’, quoted in Lagan 2007: np).

It is difficult to give advice on how to respond to such criticism: obviously a completed and well-constructed comic narrative might allay the concerns of those who immediately positioned Darren and James as ‘butts’ of the jokes. But there will always be those who cannot see beyond their own misconceptions, those who choose to condemn rather than engage, and those whose very existence depends on controlling disabled people within organised communities.

4.17 CONCLUSION

There are plenty of rules on how to create strong narratives and reach audiences, and almost none when it comes to creative collaboration with others: ‘you get to create them, to make them up as you go along’ (Field 2003: 352). This project has done just that. But it has been further complicated by its collaboration with intellectually-disabled people. Some of the challenges faced were unique to intellectual disability, while others are common to the world of film sets, actors, egos and budgetary pressures. In the end, the greatest constant was that actors with intellectual disabilities are the same as those without: they have individual personalities, emotions and anxieties. But they also have unique problems and these ultimately affected the process: in particular, their diverse interpretations

139

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

and responses to the fiction/reality distinction. In addition, the many external agendas and misconceptions about intellectual disability proved frustrating, time- consuming and, at times, disheartening. But the existence of these agendas and views confirmed the absolute need for a project such as this.

Unfortunately, there are no easy ways to deal with such agendas: overcoming them requires personal resilience, persistence, determination, confidence, an unflinching belief in one’s project and the vigorous support of others.

Filmmakers seeking a path of least resistance might attempt wider consultation with those who claim to represent the disability community. But this project, and what it seeks to achieve, is not and never has been interested in this path, nor has it ever sought to appease this self-proclaimed representative community.

What has become clear is that traditional concepts of creative authorship, those driven by individualistic, auteur approaches, are limited and unrealistic. The work at the heart of this project could not exist without the creative input of many people, not least the disabled actors, co-creators and co-writers who have collaborated with me from the beginning.

Filmmakers and narrative researchers who embark on similar creative collaborations with disabled people, or with other minority voices who seek to be heard, need not feel that their efforts to forge a cohesive and accessible work is at odds with empowering full and free expression. These objectives can be managed together; indeed, they can enhance each other.

140

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Crucial to successful collaboration is ‘the recognition of the expertise and knowledge each participant, the researcher included, brings to the process’

(Dowse 2009: 147). To this end, filmmaking – and this film in particular – represents the way in which people of different abilities come together on a creative project. Disability in this context has little relevance, for the intellectually-disabled actor brings no less to the table than a producer with no knowledge of gaffing.

In this trusting, collaborative environment, filmmakers and researchers don’t need to ‘apologise’ for shaping their narratives to find audiences (Booth 1996: 250); instead, they need only listen, communicate openly and use their dramaturgical tools wisely so that ‘new kinds of voices can be raised and fresh meanings of resistance, freedom and pride can be conceptualized and understood’ (Dowse

2009: 150).

141

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

142

\

C HAPTER F IVE: C ONCLUSIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

ne of my favourite moments of Down Under Mystery Tour occurs in O the final act when James is discussing what he’s going to do next with his life. He says he’s going to make his own comedy show and tell jokes to a live audience. There’s a twist, though: laughing gas will be pumped into the auditorium, presumably so everyone will laugh at the jokes even if they don’t think they’re funny. It’s an ingenious way to reach and satisfy an audience: forget about the quality of the material and just medicate them so they’ll enjoy it.

However, the real world requires the engagement and satisfaction of audiences through other means: the creation of powerful stories with well-structured narratives, identifiable characters and universal themes.

The aim of this research project has been to use these techniques to reach an audience with voices that are seldom heard in the mainstream. Doing this has

143

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

required a balance between entertainment and expression, authorial control and collaboration, and voice and audience appeal. At times, these have not been easy to balance: early on in the project, it became clear that letting the disabled voice

‘roam free’ would not result in a coherent and watchable narrative. The use of structural tools, manipulation, contrivance and containment were necessary not only to clarify and focus the various disabled voices but to make them accessible.

To this end, this project has required the practical skills and experience of filmmaking in general, as well as an understanding of, and sensitivity towards, the limitations of intellectual disability.

At the time of writing this thesis, it is impossible to know if Down Under Mystery

Tour will reach and resonate with mainstream audiences. I have applied and followed the techniques that experts recommend for this purpose but, in the end, no-one can predict for certain what will attract and engage audiences. If this was possible, nothing would ever bomb in Hollywood and no television show would ever need axing.

Nonetheless, it is my intention -- and it is part of the ongoing life of this film and research -- to gather empirical data by way of audience testing and surveys to determine if, and to what extent, the work resonates with a general audience and, accordingly, seek out such audiences through film festivals, broadcasters, sales agents and distributors.

144

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

As discussed in the introductory chapter, it is my hope that the importance of this research will extend beyond the success or failure of the creative work to reach an audience. More than anything, I hope that this thesis provides insight and guidance for producers, directors and writers who are embarking on similar creative works.

5.2 WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNT

Many lessons have been learned from the experience of Down Under Mystery

Tour and I hope that filmmakers considering further work in this area will benefit from the challenges and insights offered by this production and the reflections and experiences contained within this exegesis.

Above all, I believe this work demonstrates that meaningful and constructive collaboration between intellectually-disabled and non-disabled people is possible.

As a non-disabled filmmaker, I sought to represent disabled voices and to make them as accessible as possible to a mainstream audience. I helped shape, craft and construct these voices around a fictional narrative while my collaborators provided the rare ability to be open and honest, to share their hopes, dreams and disappointments, and to engage with others in enthusiastic, touching and humorous ways.

More specifically, my collaborators contributed to this project in five significant ways. Firstly, they were heavily involved in concept development from the

145

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

beginning, contributing ideas, goals and dramatic needs which, as discussed previously, are at the very heart of a workable and engaging narrative (McKee

1998, see also Field 1994). Secondly, through discussion and conversation, they elucidated and helped focus the themes of the movie: themes about ambition and recognition, about friendship and worth, about need and loss. Thirdly, through improvisation and role-playing, they helped develop the plot of the narrative and the ongoing conflicts that gave it momentum. Fourthly, they contributed the majority of dialogue to the film. And, finally, they offered editorial feedback in the post production process.

Together, I believe the representations we have presented do not fit neatly within the prescribed categories or taxonomical lists of the past. I am confident that, as a collaboration, we have provided what many disability scholars believe can only come from disabled artists alone: a ‘fresh, exciting stor[y] about disability’

(Sutherland 1997: 20). Darren, James and Malcolm have not learnt the skills to become filmmakers in their own right but their understanding of the craft and their literacy of film has improved vastly. If they choose to continue acting, or to learn more about the craft so that they can initiate and manage their own film productions, they have taken a significant first step.

One of the most unexpected findings of this project was the extent to which manipulation and control – in the form of a more rigid approach to structure and narrative contrivance – enhanced, strengthened and clarified the disabled voice.

146

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

Many experts who criticise previous representations of disability as ‘narrow’,

‘unrealistic’ and ‘negative’ (Mantle 2008: 5, see also Shakespeare 1999: 154,

Wolfson and Norden 2000: 289, 295, Norden 1994: 3, Klobas, quoted in Pointon

1997c: 84) argue for an exclusively-disabled approach to creative production, putting disabled actors in front of, and behind the camera (Whittington-Walsh

2002: 696, see also Cumberbatch and Negrine 1992: 115, Harnett 2000: 27,

Lynch 1997: 126). They don’t want the interference of non-disabled people.

While this project rejected such an exclusive approach from the outset, I was nevertheless conscious of the extent of my interference in the process. I believed at the beginning that simply following the disabled actors around and giving them almost complete freedom to do and say what they liked would best serve the objectives of the work. But this was not the case. As the narrative developed, and the structure became more contained, their voices, insights and perspectives on the world became clearer and stronger. I discovered that the best way of doing justice to the narratives of my intellectually-disabled collaborators was indeed to interfere: using manipulation, transformation and interpretation through ‘the tools of the dramatist’ (Booth 1996: 250).

Such interference, and lack of it, raised new tensions, particularly when my disabled collaborators spoke or behaved in ways that might be viewed negatively by others. This was indeed the case with Malcolm, whose confessions and reflections often surprised me. Had I been writing the film on my own, without

147

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

collaboration, it is highly unlikely that I would have scripted Malcolm’s lines as he did. But he was a collaborator, a co-creator and co-writer, and his words – however surprising – often had meaning and resonance for the overall narrative and I saw no reason to edit them out because others might not like or agree with them. Malcolm’s ‘voice’ is at times blunt and confronting, and will no doubt unsettle some audiences, but his is a vital and important representation: his words and his journey expose and speak to the broader misconceptions of disability and reveal his willingness to be genuine, honest, real and happily flawed. I believe that his ‘fictional’ journey in the film represents an often-misunderstood man whose abrupt, superficial take on the world masks a kind, gentle and affectionate person who wants to be accepted and loved like everybody else.

The collaborative and constructive elements of this project raised additional challenges. While many of these were common to filmmaking generally, the involvement of intellectually-disabled people as actors, co-creators and co-writers presented some unique and unexpected challenges.

The first of these were the diverse interpretations and responses of my disabled collaborators to the fictional narrative. Sometimes this required management, sensitivity and patience, particularly when Darren was confronted with some of the film’s more antagonistic elements. But, on other occasions, the blurring of the reality-fiction divide enhanced the disabled actors’ performances and allowed them to express themselves more freely and openly than I could ever have

148

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

imagined. Malcolm was particularly skilled at improvising, largely because he immersed himself in the scene, believed everything he was saying and doing, and had the composure to call ‘cut’ when he felt the objectives of the scene had been met.

The second challenge of working with intellectually-disabled people was the interference of external parties, whose intentions were not always in good faith.

This was less manageable and extraordinarily more difficult than any of the other challenges of this project – but it was overcome. This was due in no small part to a supportive university and academic community, and my disabled collaborators and their loved ones, who absolutely refused to let the project’s fate be dictated by others. I hope that the actions of those who sought to stop this work, and the negative publicity afforded this project, do not discourage others from pursuing important research and filmmaking in this area.

5.3 THE FUTURE FOR DISABILITY NARRATIVES

The way forward, as this project has demonstrated, is to do what film and television producers do on all projects: bring together people of different talents, recognise and utilise their strengths, and accept their limitations. Collaboration with intellectually-disabled people is the same.

In the future, as more collaborations such as this take place, perhaps intellectually- disabled people will develop the skills and expertise to initiate and lead projects as

149

L AUGHING & D ISABILITY

producers and directors themselves. When this happens, the disabled voice will be accessible, their high-quality narratives will reach and engage audiences and there will be no need for laughing gas.

150

A PPENDICES

151

2 2George George Street Street GPO GPO Box Box 2434 2434 Brisbane Brisbane Qld Old 4001 4001 Australia Australia QueenslandQueensland University University of of Technology Technology ProfessorProfessor Arun Arun Sharma Sharma PhonePhone0738642132 07 3864 2132 Fax Fax0738644097 07 3864 4097 Deputy Vice-Chancellor Deputy Vice-Chancellor EmailEmail [email protected] [email protected] www.resacom.qut.edu.au www.resacom.qut.edu.au (Research(Research and and Commercialisation) Commercialisation) CAICOSCRlCOS No. No. 00213.1 0021U ABN ABN 83 83 791 791 724 724622 622 1515 June June 2007 2007

MrMr MichaelMichael Noonan Noonan

DearDear Mr Mr Noonan, Noonan.

InIn response response to to an an allegation allegation of of research research misconduct misconduct raised raised against against your your project project Laughing Laughing with with thethe Disabled: Disabled: CreatingCreating Comedy Comedy thatthat Confronts, Confronts, OffendsOffends and and Entertains Entertains an an auditaudit was was undertakenundertaken byby a apanel panel of of UHREC UHREC on on Monday Monday 4th 4*June June 2007. 2007.

Overall,Overall, the the audit audit panel panel found found no no misconduct, misconduct, however however there there are are some some minor minor matters matters that that requirerequire attention attention from from you you in in the the form form of of an an amendment amendment to to the the application application being being presented presented toto UHREC. UHREC. These These matters matters are are conveyed conveyed at at the the end end of of this this letter. letter.

KeyKey Items ltems from from the the Executive Executive Summary Summary of of the the Audit Audit

• TheThe panel panel found found no no major major grounds grounds for for objection objection in in either either the the manner manner of of application, application. reviewreview and and approval; approval; or or in in the the conduct conduct of of the the project project to to date. date.

• TheThe panel panel found found no no evidence evidence of of harm, harm, discomfort, discomfort, ridicule ridicule or or exploitation exploitation to to the the participants,participants. Darren Darren and and James, James, as as indicated indicated by by the the letter letter of of complaint. complaint.

• TheThe panel panel noted noted the the positive positive enthusiasm enthusiasm of of the the participants participants involved, involved, their their treatment treatment withwith dignity dignity and and sensitivity, sensitivity, and and the the warm warm way way in in which which they they were were welcomed welcomed into into thethe particular particular community community where where filming filming had had occurred. occurred.

• TheThe panel panel noted noted the the positive positive intentions intentions of of the the student student (Mr (Mr Michael Michael Noonan), Noonan), and and the the positivepositive feedback feedback received received from from the the participants participants and and their their families families (as (as relayed relayed by by Mr Mr MichaelMichael Noonan). Noonan).

KeyKey Items ltems from from the the Audit Audit Report Repoi?

ChangesChanees in in the the conduct conductof of the the study study

TheThe ethics ethics application application was was submittedsubmitted with with the the title title "Laughing"Laughing withwith the the disabled" disabled" butbut the the confirmationconfirmation seminar seminar had had been been titled titled "Laughing "Laughing at at the the disabled". disabled". The The title title for for the the series series itself itself hadhad been been changed changed from from 'Magical 'Magical Mystery Mystery Tour' Tour' to to 'Down 'Downunder under Mystery Mystery Tour'. Tour'. The The panel panel notednoted that that in in the the case case of of the the change change of of title, title, there there is is (and (and was) was) thethe possibility possibility of of significant significant impact,impact, and and the the title title as as approved approved should should always always be be used used in in public, public, or or submitted submitted for for approval approval fromfrom UHREC. UHREC.

TheThe panel panel noted noted that that John John Hart Hart (from (from Spectrum Spectrum Organisation) Organisation) who who is is present present at at all all filming. filming. ThisThis has has always always occurred occurred but but was was notnot noted noted in in the the original original submission. submission. TheThe omission omission of of detailsdetails of of John John Hart's Hart's presence presence at at filming, filming, whilst whilst an an omission, omission, is is noted noted as as a apositive positive variation variation toto the the original original submission. submission.

TheThe Spectrum Spectrum Organization Organization has has sought sought external external consultation consultation from from a apracticing practicing psychologist psychologist whowho specializes specializes in in intellectual intellectual disability, disability. to to assist assist with with the the sensitivities sensitivities of of the the project project raised raised by by

PagePage I 1 00 of 3 ===- CampusesCampuses Gardens Gardens Point Point Kelvin Kelvin Grove Grove Carseldine Caneldine

APPENDICES -- PAGE 153 the current controversy. The panel noted this as a positive variation to the original submission.

Indigenouslndigenous recruitment was not specifically mentioned inin the application.application, but Indigenouslndigenous people were includedincluded in the filming. However it was noted that the project did not include the purposeful recruiting of the Indigenouslndigenous community.community, and the panel considers the current arrangements for seeking releases from any lndigenousIndigenous people in the filming to be adequate.

You indicated to the panel possible direct filming (interviews) of the two key participants.participants, and this would require an amendment submission to UHREC.

Consent Procedures

The panel believed consent procedures were adequate but noted the confusion between which forms should bebe used.

It was noted by the panel that you agreed.agreed, following an enquiry from the adult guardian,guardian. that you should have requested the two key participants to sign consent agreements.agreements, in addition to the cast agreements. This should be rectified. The panel suggested that potentially this could be within the one document - a cast agreement that includes specifics of research component.

It was noted that consent (via release forms) was obtained for all incidental participation.participation, but that QUT ethics consent forms were not completed. The panel does not view research ethics consent forms as being required for future incidental participation.participation, as involvement is limitedlimited to the film,film. ratherrather than as subjects of the research project.

You also submitted informationinformation to the audit panel on cast agreements which gave details of payments to participants. These arrangements come under the category of inducements to participate.participate, and details should be provided to UHREC together with commentary on how the arrangements are still consistent with voluntary participation.

Privac;yPrivacv & Confidentialit;yConfidentiality

InIn relationrelation to privacy/confidentialityprivacylconfidentiality you indicatedindicated to the panel that the major issueissue around privacy had been the release of the names 'Darren and James' by the complainant in a global email,email. which made itit possible for Darren and James to come under media scrutiny of a negative kind. You noted to the audit panel that meetings have been held with Spectrum Organisations to looklook at mechanismsmechanisms for ensuring protection of Darren and James. These mechanisms should be outlined to UHREC.

No risk factors were identifiedidentified in the original application.

You indicated to the panel that you believed there had been no distress.distress, discomfort or harm to this point but noted that the current external factors surrounding the controversy may raise possibility of this. You further indicatedindicated the parents/gaurdiansparentslgaurdians are very positive about the project and continuecontinue to supportsupport it.it. James' mothermother had providedprovided an eexamplexample to you of the growth inin James since being involved.involved, indicating his enhanced social opportunities

The subsequent development of the project.project, and the public issues it has raised.raised, will require an analysis of the risks with the project and their management. These can include among others: the risk of Darren and James being named and spoken of in ways harmful to them;

Page 2 00of 3

APPENDICES -- PAGE 154 the psychological riskrisk of filming the participants;participants: the occurrence of spontaneous events, such as the scenes with an Indigenous woman, and how these are managed; the possibility of an interviewee becoming confronting; ete.etc.

As noted previously you have indicatedindicated discussion has occurred with Spectrum Organisation on how to 'protect' Darren and James, and others, when "Unlikely Travellers" is released.

It is understood that there has also been some discussion on teaching 'interview'interview skills' --forfor example to deal with an intervieweeinterviewee who becomes angry.

The panel recommended that material supplied to the audit panel (additional informationinformation of work with Spectrum Organisation on risk mitigation etc) be provided to me for my information.

In light of the panel findings,findings, I now request that you provide to UHREC an amendment to your application inin relation to the additional information identified during the audit, within two weeks of the receiptreceipt of this letter:letter:

• the need to fully complete both the consent forms and the castlfilming cast/filming release forms for the two keykey participants. As indicated by the panel this can be within the one document, possibly via co-signing of the consent forms already signed by the parents/guardians';parentslguardians'; • noting that inducementsinducements to participation exist through the funding arrangements which have now been put inin place. These arrangements come under the category of inducements to participate, and details should be provided to UHREC together with commentary on howhow the arrangements are still consistent with voluntary participation;participation: • in lightlight of the manner inin which the project has developed, fully identifying any risks associated with the project and their management; • seeking approval to includeinclude direct filming of discussions with the two key participants inin the lelead-upad-up to their participation in further filming for the series; • noting that only the approved title ("Laughing("Laughing with the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains")Entertains") is to be used unless approval for a title change has beenbeen given by UHREC

If you have any questions in relationrelation to the form the amendment application should take please contact Mr David Wiseman, Research Ethics Officer, Office of Research.

Yours sincerely

Professor Arun Sharma Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation)

Cc: Associate Professor Geoff Portman,Portman. Principal Supervisor Professor Susan Street,Streeq Executive Dean Professor Leo earney,Carney, Chair.Chair, UHREC

Page 303 of0 3

APPENDICES -- PAGE 155 '-S4C7; � . , � �:;, Australian Gtn'el'IIlDeli! RECEIVED 7\ationalHdlltiJ am!. MedialRescard1 Coc:::cii 29 NOV 2007 eve (R&C)

\Xi 0 It KIN G T () B 11 J LD A HE A LT If Y i\ U S T R A L I A

. .... �a[! www.nhn")n. go

Professor Arun Sharma Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) Queensland University of Technology GPO Box2434 BRISBANE QLD 400 1

Dear Professor Sharma

Thank you for your response to my letter of 4 October2007. Having considered the information which you provided, I am satisfied that Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has acted appropriately and is able to justifY both the ethical review process and the subsequent internal review that took place.

The NHMRC will not be pursuing this matter further.

Professor Warwick Anderson Chief Executive Officer

�ember2007

GPO Box 1421,CanberraACT2601 Level 5,20 AilaraStreet. Canbel"nCity Aa T.13000NHMRC(1300064672 or+61262179000 F.+61262179100 E.nhmrc nhmrc.ov.au

APPENDICES -- PAGE 156 FROM THE MAKERS OF UNLIKELY TRAVELLERS

A SIX-PART SERIES FOR TELEVISION

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ALL RIGHTS BY ALL MEDIA RESERVED

APPENDICES -- PAGE 157 “bold, blunt and hilariously honest..”

arren and James are two extraordinary Aussie blokes Dwith a passion for life and a thirst for adventure.

U�erly unique and infectiously entertaining, they are quite unlike any- one you’ve seen on television.

Fresh from their inspirational tour of ancient Egypt -- featured in the upcom- ing three-part series Unlikely Travellers –- they are about to tackle a whole new series of challenges: exploring Australia’s unexplained mysteries.

Their journey will uncover myth and folklore, bizarre outback locations, un- travelled roads, imaginary beasts, threat- ening terrain and people who are “just- plain-weird”.

Traversing the continent in their purpose- built mystery van, they will ask the ques- tions no-one else dares: swapping stories with publicans, barbers, rodeo riders, ca�le grazers, miners, mayors and li�le old ladies in cra� shops.

The Gigantic Australian Yowie at Coona- barabran, the Min Min Lights at Boulia, the Hawkesbury River Monster, the Gympie Pyramid, the Blue Mountain Panther and the Picnic at Hanging Rock: Darren and James will investigate them all.

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ALL RIGHTS BY ALL MEDIA RESERVED

APPENDICES -- PAGE 158 “meet them and you will never be the same..”

n a world of reality TV wannabes, Darren and James have the truest Iof motivations: they don’t want to be dancing stars or pop idols; they don’t crave fame or fortune. They seek only to indulge in the wonders of life.

Theirs is a journey of enlightenment and interaction: they’ll climb rugged mountains, enter caves in the dark of night, ride uncontrollable horses, dive into deep water, try their hand at tribal dancing and shear sheep with the locals.

It’s The Leyland Brothers meets The X-Files; it’s Scooby-Doo meets The Li�lest Hobo; it’s an energetic, unpredictable joy ride from town to town and place to place.

Six half-hours, each self-contained and satisfying: a new mystery to solve, a new town to explore. Unusual people, strange places and remarkable scenery. They will face daily challenges and strive for long-term goals: will Darren find all the answers he seeks? Will James meet the girl of his dreams? Will they each learn to cope with the elements, the hostile terrain, mechanical failings and each other?

Armed with unbridled curiosity, a laid- back sense of humour and a refreshing lack of inhibition, Darren and James are the ultimate Aussie explorers.

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ALL RIGHTS BY ALL MEDIA RESERVED

APPENDICES -- PAGE 159 episode guide: six half-hours EPISODE 2: EPISODE 1: The Gigantic Australian Yowie The Min Min Lights Coonabarabran, NSW Boulia, Queensland Also known as Doolagahl, the aboriginal word for “Great The western Queensland town of Boulia has Hairy Man”, the Yowie is a common Australian myth. built its tourist reputation on the Min Min Described as often enormous, hairy, ape-like creatures of lights, mysterious lights that appear to fol- tremendous weight and strength, yowies have been sighted low travellers for long distances. While some as far back as the 1800s. explain the lights as mirages or refractions of light, others believe they have an “intelligence”. EPISODE 3: The Gympie Pyramid Gympie, Queensland The Gympie Pyramid is a terraced hill on the outskirts of Gympie in South East Queens- land, believed to contain remnants of a stone pyramid-like structure. There have been many theories about its origin, some claiming it was built by Phoenicians, the Spanish, or modern Italian winemakers; others say it is the work of ancient Egyptians or aliens. EPISODE 4: The Hawkesbury River Monster St Albans, NSW In the depths of the Hawkesbury River lurks the long lost cousin of the Loch Ness Monster. Hundreds of reports have been collected over the last 30 years, most recently in November 2000, describing it as a black creature between 7 and 24 metres in length. EPISODE 5: The Blue Mountain Panther EPISODE 6: Lithgow, NSW The Picnic at Hanging Rock For years there have been sightings of a “large fe- Mt Macedon, Victoria line predator of unknown origin” roaming the Blue Three boarding school students and a teacher Mountains. Amateur video footage of a panther- went missing from Hanging Rock during an ex- like creature was captured by a young Lithgow cursion on St Valentine’s Day, 1900. The story, couple in 2001, but many experts dismissed it as made famous in a book and subsequent film, an over-sized feral cat. remains shrouded in mystery.

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ALL RIGHTS BY ALL MEDIA RESERVED

APPENDICES -- PAGE 160 NOTES ON PHD SUBMISSION COPY OF ‘DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR’

The film submitted for examination (and included in this thesis) has been modified through editorial changes as a result of QUT accepting legal advice on the portrayal of certain subject matter. QUT believes that these changes do not have a substantive effect on the thematic or stylistic integrity of the film and hence did not limit the examinability of the film for the purpose of award of a PhD. These changes are as follows:

1. The name of Malcolm's girlfriend has been replaced with a tone pip so that is not decipherable.

2. The logos of commercial entities on Warren's shirt have been blurred out in all scenes in which he appears.

3. Three additional title cards (white on black) have been inserted, consistent with the stylistic 'typing' approach throughout the film.

The first appears at approximately 48 minutes into the film. This card reads: “The Committee for the Protection of Disabled People on Film has decided that it is too dangerous for Darren and James to be involved in the TV show any longer. They give Cyril strict instructions to remove the pair from set.”

The second appears at approximately 55 minutes. This card reads: “The Committee for the Protection of Disabled People on Film has decided that Malcolm is no longer capable of directing the show and he is relegated to making coffees and folding napkins. Although Cyril has no idea what a director actually does and admits to the committee that he is "creatively inept", they decide he is the ideal person to control a television program.”

The third appears at approximately 58 minutes into the film. This card reads: “The Committee for the Protection of Disabled People on Film, in consultation with the Australian Association of Actors Playing Disabled (and Mentally Ill) People, has decided that the presence of Malcolm, Darren and James on set is distracting for the real, non-disabled actors. They instruct Cyril to remove them from the set and send them to a tenpin bowling centre with special 'buffer' lanes so that they won't humiliate themselves.”

APPENDICES -- PAGE 161

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

NOTE: Timecodes should be used as a guide only and may be approximately +10.00 seconds out from 00:01:35:13 due to changes in content from original closed-captioned version (from which this transcript was derived).

00:00:34:21 -- 00:00:38:14 -- [KEYBOARD TYPING] In March 2006, a dysfunctional film crew set off to make a TV show in the harsh Australian outback. Their goal was to document and solve the country’s unexplained mysteries. Not all of them made it back.

00:01:09:01 -- 00:01:13:08 -- Everything on TV is up the shit. I don't like it. Crap. 00:01:13:08 -- 00:01:17:18 -- Not my liking. If you put better shows on I'd watch it. 00:01:17:18 -- 00:01:21:01 -- If you don't -- well flush it down the toilet. 00:01:21:01 -- 00:01:25:07 -- Nothing on there at all. [WHACK] 00:01:35:13 -- 00:01:38:09 -- I'm going to make a good TV show. 00:01:38:09 -- 00:01:39:11 -- [CLAP] 00:01:39:11 -- 00:01:43:21 -- The show is romance and finding love. 00:01:43:21 -- 00:01:46:08 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:01:46:08 -- 00:01:49:12 -- The movie we're going to make has got these two girls in it. 00:01:49:12 -- 00:01:51:17 -- One -- two -- three -- four -- five. 00:01:51:17 -- 00:01:53:19 -- Two spunky girls -- two sheilas. 00:01:53:19 -- 00:01:58:00 -- Sexy devils they are -- very special -- very nice -- sexy looking. 00:01:58:00 -- 00:02:02:01 -- We'll be going on a pub crawl -- go to pubs -- go to strip joints. 00:02:02:01 -- 00:02:05:01 -- What ever they want to do. I don't know. 00:02:05:01 -- 00:02:08:03 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:02:08:15 -- 00:02:11:16 -- Bloody girls. [TYPEWRITER] 00:02:11:16 -- 00:02:16:18 -- It's a love story -- with mysteries. Malcolm's TV Show. 00:02:16:18 -- 00:02:18:12 -- Hmm. 00:02:18:12 -- 00:02:21:11 -- Love story. 00:02:21:11 -- 00:02:23:05 -- Hmm. 00:02:23:05 -- 00:02:26:15 -- Work is never done -- Bloody woman -- I need a woman to do this. 00:02:26:15 -- 00:02:29:14 -- This is my show -- I'm making this movie. 00:02:29:14 -- 00:02:32:21 -- Down Under Mystery Tour. 00:02:32:21 -- 00:02:35:14 -- With two chicky babes -- hot babes. 00:02:35:14 -- 00:02:36:19 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:02:36:19 -- 00:02:38:13 -- Grrr. 00:02:38:13 -- 00:02:40:07 -- There we go. 00:02:40:07 -- 00:02:44:02 -- Hit the road Jack -- never come back no more -- no more. 00:02:44:02 -- 00:02:47:08 -- Who's going to bloody watch it -- the whole world I hope. Everybody. 00:02:47:08 -- 00:02:49:23 -- I’m the director -- I run the show. 00:02:49:23 -- 00:02:51:17 -- [LAWN MOWER MOTOR]

APPENDICES -- PAGE 163

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:02:51:17 -- 00:02:54:23 -- I run the show to make these movies -- I'm the boss at it. 00:02:54:23 -- 00:02:56:10 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:02:58:22 -- 00:03:02:24 -- I've been a producer for about five years now -- professionally. 00:03:02:24 -- 00:03:07:16 -- I've made a lot of documentaries and some short films -- feature films. 00:03:07:16 -- 00:03:13:24 -- Out of the blue completely -- in the mail -- I received this proposal from Malcolm. 00:03:13:24 -- 00:03:19:15 -- And it's just great. Not too sure about the girls -- the half naked girls on the front 00:03:19:15 -- 00:03:22:12 -- but you know -- that's okay -- we'll work with that. 00:03:22:12 -- 00:03:27:09 -- I have gone through and just -- you know -- made a couple of small changes -- 00:03:27:09 -- 00:03:32:22 -- some suggestions -- but this is -- this is what really excites me here. 00:03:32:22 -- 00:03:38:12 -- Malcolm has a mild intellectual disability. This is just great - - it's wonderful. 00:03:38:12 -- 00:03:43:01 -- There's lots of funding you can get for people with disabilities. I've had a bit of a 00:03:43:01 -- 00:03:48:01 -- look into it -- you'll see that we'll be able to go through this and tick every box and we 00:03:48:01 -- 00:03:51:17 -- can get the money -- which means we can get this project made. 00:03:51:17 -- 00:03:55:02 -- And I'm not going to be losing money. [LAUGHTER] 00:03:55:02 -- 00:03:58:22 -- We might even be able to get someone who is a regional person with a disability 00:03:58:22 -- 00:04:01:18 -- so that ticks another box as well. 00:04:01:18 -- 00:04:04:02 -- [PHONE RINGING] 00:04:04:02 -- 00:04:05:21 -- Good morning -- who's that? 00:04:05:21 -- 00:04:09:05 -- Malcolm -- hi -- it's Simone here -- the producer. 00:04:09:05 -- 00:04:10:24 -- Producer -- what do you want? 00:04:10:24 -- 00:04:14:02 -- You sent me your proposal for Down Under Mystery Tour. 00:04:14:02 -- 00:04:15:05 -- Any problems? 00:04:15:05 -- 00:04:17:09 -- I think there is some great stuff in there -- 00:04:17:09 -- 00:04:19:14 -- I'd really like to sit down -- have a conversation with you... 00:04:19:14 -- 00:04:20:14 -- Hot chicks? 00:04:20:14 -- 00:04:24:23 -- The girls on the front cover and the sexy chicks as the characters -- 00:04:24:23 -- 00:04:28:20 -- it’s probably not the way I would recommend going. 00:04:28:20 -- 00:04:30:14 -- Oh righto. 00:04:30:14 -- 00:04:35:04 -- I'm thinking -- we get a couple of men -- a couple of guys - - 00:04:35:04 -- 00:04:38:19 -- who have mild intellectual disabilities as well 00:04:38:19 -- 00:04:43:07 -- and we have them as our two characters -- our two stars travelling around

APPENDICES -- PAGE 164

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:04:43:07 -- 00:04:46:12 -- Oh they’re bloody fruitcakes -- what do you want them to go there for? 00:04:46:12 -- 00:04:50:09 -- No -- no -- trust me on this one Malcolm 00:04:50:09 -- 00:04:53:11 -- No chicks -- two boys? Okay. 00:04:53:11 -- 00:04:56:15 -- And we get these two boys to go to the strip joint or else. 00:04:56:15 -- 00:04:57:21 -- Strip clubs? 00:04:57:21 -- 00:05:03:01 -- So you want the two characters to stop at strip clubs along the way? 00:05:03:01 -- 00:05:07:19 -- Look that's probably not the way to go with the story -- I don't think. 00:05:07:19 -- 00:05:11:16 -- But if that's something you would like to do in your own time 00:05:11:16 -- 00:05:15:22 -- while we're out on tour that's fine -- I can help organise that for you. 00:05:15:22 -- 00:05:16:21 -- Alright. 00:05:16:21 -- 00:05:18:15 -- Alright then -- well thank... 00:05:18:15 -- 00:05:20:01 -- [SLAM] 00:05:20:01 -- 00:05:23:07 -- Bye. Hmm. 00:05:26:07 -- 00:05:29:15 -- This is my brother Gordie. I love him and I'm making a TV show. 00:05:29:15 -- 00:05:34:00 -- I haven't get my mum but she loved them. Love story -- we're making a love story. 00:05:34:00 -- 00:05:37:08 -- Gordon loves them too. 00:05:37:08 -- 00:05:40:07 -- [LAUGHTER] What are you watching? 00:05:40:07 -- 00:05:42:20 -- I'm watching the love story -- Malcolm. 00:05:42:20 -- 00:05:45:18 -- [MOODY MUSIC] 00:05:48:23 -- 00:05:50:07 -- Rolling. 00:05:50:07 -- 00:05:52:01 -- Action. 00:05:52:01 -- 00:05:58:03 -- Welcome everyone. We're going on a trip to Down Under and we are going to find 00:05:58:03 -- 00:06:04:15 -- everything and find out all the things about -- all the yowie - - UFO and… 00:06:04:15 -- 00:06:06:09 -- Hanging Rock. 00:06:06:09 -- 00:06:10:22 -- ...Yeah -- min min lights… Down Under -- have you been to Down Under before? 00:06:10:22 -- 00:06:13:21 -- No -- I've only been to Sydney and... 00:06:17:04 -- 00:06:28:00 -- We had a phone call about someone wanting two guys for a mystery tour 00:06:28:00 -- 00:06:31:12 -- and I thought yeah -- why not -- let's do it. 00:06:31:12 -- 00:06:39:14 -- One day if… if when we be on TV -- the people not going to leave us alone 00:06:39:14 -- 00:06:45:14 -- because they come over -- they want our autograph and when James and I 00:06:45:14 -- 00:06:51:04 -- walk down the street they'd say -- oh look there's Darren and James!

APPENDICES -- PAGE 165

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:06:51:04 -- 00:06:52:21 -- Cheers mate. 00:06:52:21 -- 00:06:56:06 -- I would like to be famous -- then everyone on the street would notice me -- 00:06:56:06 -- 00:06:59:01 -- but it doesn't matter if I'm famous or not. It doesn't matter. 00:06:59:01 -- 00:07:04:07 -- I don't really care about mysteries. I'd rather find a girlfriend. 00:07:04:07 -- 00:07:07:18 -- Maybe I might find a girlfriend on the mystery tour. 00:07:07:18 -- 00:07:10:09 -- Yeah -- no -- not yet -- no. 00:07:10:09 -- 00:07:15:04 -- Us two -- we are going to find everything out of everything. 00:07:15:04 -- 00:07:19:11 -- Yeah -- we're going to find out and we're going to do some research and find out 00:07:19:11 -- 00:07:22:10 -- and solve mysteries so people don't have to worry about them any more. 00:07:22:10 -- 00:07:26:07 -- So people can just move on with their lives -- 00:07:26:07 -- 00:07:29:06 -- and just continue their lives in peace. 00:07:29:06 -- 00:07:36:21 -- And we’re going to be fantastic and exciting and oh yeah -- I cannot wait to go. 00:07:36:21 -- 00:07:39:17 -- It's going to be really exciting. 00:07:39:17 -- 00:07:40:23 -- Yeah. 00:07:40:23 -- 00:07:44:17 -- Cut. Rubbish -- no good. 00:07:44:17 -- 00:07:47:17 -- Bloody useless -- rubbish. 00:07:50:16 -- 00:07:55:08 -- They are not very funny at all. They're not the bloody full quid. 00:07:55:08 -- 00:07:58:08 -- You tell them what to -- do they do something else. 00:07:58:08 -- 00:08:01:08 -- They're something different all together. 00:08:01:08 -- 00:08:04:08 -- If they don't get their act together… 00:08:06:11 -- 00:08:07:23 -- Let's go. 00:08:07:23 -- 00:08:08:18 -- Go. 00:08:08:18 -- 00:08:11:08 -- [CAR ENGINE]

MYSTERY #1: YOWIE

00:08:26:15 -- 00:08:31:13 -- We're off to see the yowie. Oh God -- I cannot wait. Can you? 00:08:31:13 -- 00:08:32:09 -- Same. 00:08:32:09 -- 00:08:35:09 -- Yowie country -- here we are. 00:08:35:09 -- 00:08:39:15 -- I wonder how the yowie will react when it sees us? 00:08:39:15 -- 00:08:41:07 -- Oh I don't know James. 00:08:41:07 -- 00:08:44:11 -- Do you think the yowie might destroy the vehicle? 00:08:44:11 -- 00:08:47:11 -- Oh yeah -- maybe. 00:08:47:11 -- 00:08:52:07 -- Keep going -- keep going. Cut! 00:08:52:07 -- 00:08:57:12 -- Well I got the call -- about this film and I was told we'll be going on an adventure. 00:08:57:12 -- 00:09:01:23 -- It was a small crew and two good-looking birds. 00:09:01:23 -- 00:09:05:24 -- And for me that was just like a dream come true. 00:09:05:24 -- 00:09:08:24 -- Pull your finger out.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 166

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:09:12:05 -- 00:09:15:14 -- The sort of jobs I mainly work on -- 00:09:15:14 -- 00:09:18:23 -- well -- as I said -- Ralph TV was the highlight of my career. 00:09:18:23 -- 00:09:20:16 -- So I’d be really interested -- 00:09:20:16 -- 00:09:23:16 -- I was hoping this would be a step up for me but it hasn't been. 00:09:23:16 -- 00:09:26:24 -- I want to do sound for good TV. That's what I want to do -- 00:09:26:24 -- 00:09:28:22 -- and this isn't good TV. 00:09:28:22 -- 00:09:34:00 -- I don't really think disabled people should be on TV. To be - - you know -- 00:09:34:00 -- 00:09:37:17 -- like when I was doing Ralph TV -- you could tune in -- you'd have 00:09:37:17 -- 00:09:41:13 -- a bird there with a bikini telling you the footy scores from the weekend. 00:09:41:13 -- 00:09:45:09 -- Having a tinny -- you know -- watching that. Why would you want to come home 00:09:45:09 -- 00:09:48:24 -- on a Sunday night -- have a beer and be watching disabled people on TV 00:09:48:24 -- 00:09:52:14 -- Like -- you know -- like there's a few times where I've been sitting there with my girlfriend -- 00:09:52:14 -- 00:09:56:17 -- She's made a really nice meal -- you know -- steak and eggs or something for dinner. 00:09:56:17 -- 00:10:00:14 -- We've sat down -- put the TV on -- see a disabled person on TV -- I can't eat -- 00:10:00:14 -- 00:10:03:22 -- she gets upset -- TV's off. It just ruins our whole night. 00:10:07:01 -- 00:10:12:18 -- I'm a bit worried about doing this show because you get labelled very quickly. 00:10:12:18 -- 00:10:18:04 -- And I don't want to be known as the guy that does disabled boom operating -- 00:10:18:04 -- 00:10:20:24 -- basically -- and that's what I'm worried about. 00:10:24:02 -- 00:10:28:08 -- We're here to talk to Dr Helmut about the yowies. 00:10:28:08 -- 00:10:29:24 -- Yowie expert. 00:10:29:24 -- 00:10:33:09 -- We're here to talk about yowies with you. 00:10:33:09 -- 00:10:36:22 -- Ah yes -- I know something about the yowie. 00:10:36:22 -- 00:10:39:00 -- Good -- excellent. 00:10:39:00 -- 00:10:41:03 -- So -- please come in. 00:10:41:03 -- 00:10:42:10 -- Okay -- thank you. 00:10:42:10 -- 00:10:47:09 -- And that shows the size -- much greater -- much bigger than human beings. 00:10:47:09 -- 00:10:50:04 -- It shows that he's hairy all over. 00:10:50:04 -- 00:10:51:21 -- And that he's scary too. 00:10:51:21 -- 00:10:53:12 -- And scary too -- yes. 00:10:53:12 -- 00:10:58:05 -- But there are testimonials here in these books of people who have seen the

APPENDICES -- PAGE 167

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:10:58:05 -- 00:11:03:20 -- yowies clearing fences -- just like kangaroos do -- jumping over them. 00:11:03:20 -- 00:11:08:12 -- If me and Darren catch the yowie would it be the happiest day of your life? 00:11:08:12 -- 00:11:13:11 -- Oh -- not necessarily the happiest day in my life -- 00:11:13:11 -- 00:11:17:00 -- but I would be very glad if it could be done. 00:11:17:00 -- 00:11:18:02 -- Glad. 00:11:18:02 -- 00:11:20:22 -- A final word on yowies -- from... 00:11:20:22 -- 00:11:23:17 -- from -- Doctor...oh -- you! 00:11:23:17 -- 00:11:24:23 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:11:24:23 -- 00:11:27:18 -- ...who says -- yowies do exist. 00:11:27:18 -- 00:11:29:14 -- Oh -- wow. 00:11:29:14 -- 00:11:33:13 -- So -- now you have it in print. You must believe it. 00:11:33:13 -- 00:11:34:15 -- Yep. 00:11:34:15 -- 00:11:37:21 -- Now is where I was standing with the first encounter. 00:11:37:21 -- 00:11:40:24 -- I was standing here -- and it was standing behind that tree over here. 00:11:40:24 -- 00:11:42:02 -- That tree? 00:11:42:02 -- 00:11:43:02 -- Oh god. 00:11:43:02 -- 00:11:46:03 -- Yeah the first time. So down here this is the track in made. 00:11:46:03 -- 00:11:48:06 -- Look at this one. 00:11:48:06 -- 00:11:50:16 -- Looks like a tree to me. 00:11:50:16 -- 00:11:52:06 -- Okay -- what are those? 00:11:52:06 -- 00:11:54:13 -- Oh there. Sorry I've been looking up here. 00:11:54:13 -- 00:11:56:07 -- You see that James? 00:11:56:07 -- 00:11:57:04 -- I see it. 00:11:57:04 -- 00:11:59:24 -- Now -- we had the New South Wales Police confirm the height of that. 00:11:59:24 -- 00:12:01:19 -- It's a berry. 00:12:01:19 -- 00:12:03:03 -- No -- it's not a berry. 00:12:04:17 -- 00:12:10:05 -- This movie we are trying to do is useless -- no good at all. 00:12:10:05 -- 00:12:14:09 -- The boys are bloody useless -- not worth two bob. 00:12:14:09 -- 00:12:19:04 -- Get rid of them two blokes and get two new chicks in it -- yes. 00:12:19:04 -- 00:12:22:16 -- So -- one of the things we need to take is this. What does this look like? 00:12:22:16 -- 00:12:23:07 -- Telephone? 00:12:23:07 -- 00:12:24:00 -- A yowie caller? 00:12:24:00 -- 00:12:26:20 -- Telephone -- yowie caller. It's a yowie caller. 00:12:26:20 -- 00:12:29:15 -- Like this -- hold it out like this -- 00:12:29:15 -- 00:12:31:14 -- [ROARING NOISE] 00:12:31:14 -- 00:12:33:16 -- What do you think this might be for? 00:12:33:16 -- 00:12:35:19 -- To measure the footprint. 00:12:35:19 -- 00:12:39:04 -- Yeah. Or to see how long we're going to be away for -- a long time.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 168

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:12:39:04 -- 00:12:41:09 -- [LAUGHTER] Yeah -- you're funny. 00:12:41:09 -- 00:12:44:04 -- [WILD SCREAMS] 00:12:44:04 -- 00:12:47:23 -- That's supposedly the mating call of the Australian yowie -- 00:12:47:23 -- 00:12:51:04 -- but when I go out in the bush and do that I don't hang around long -- 00:12:51:04 -- 00:12:53:24 -- because I don't want a horny male coming for me -- do I? [LAUGHTER] 00:12:53:24 -- 00:12:57:11 -- Oh -- wow. How do you know it's horny? 00:12:59:08 -- 00:13:02:19 -- Hey girlie -- how's it going? 00:13:02:19 -- 00:13:05:15 -- Hi Malcolm -- how are you? 00:13:05:15 -- 00:13:09:11 -- I'm just -- this show -- it's a love story -- mystery. 00:13:09:11 -- 00:13:10:18 -- Yes. 00:13:10:18 -- 00:13:13:07 -- Yeah. There's too many blokes in it. 00:13:13:07 -- 00:13:14:05 -- Yeah? 00:13:14:05 -- 00:13:17:00 -- I want you to concentrate on this program here. 00:13:18:22 -- 00:13:20:09 -- This strip club? 00:13:20:09 -- 00:13:23:04 -- Yeah -- we'll go to it and have a look. 00:13:23:04 -- 00:13:26:24 -- I don't really think they're going to know about the yowie at the strip club. 00:13:26:24 -- 00:13:28:03 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:13:28:03 -- 00:13:31:01 -- It doesn't really fit in with our script -- does it? 00:13:31:01 -- 00:13:33:21 -- Can we give it a go? 00:13:33:21 -- 00:13:35:23 -- I'll see what I can do. 00:13:35:23 -- 00:13:38:02 -- Yeah -- do your best -- do a good job -- okay. 00:13:38:02 -- 00:13:39:06 -- Yes. I will. 00:13:39:06 -- 00:13:44:22 -- People don't think I can make people laugh -- but I can. I can tell jokes and 00:13:44:22 -- 00:13:48:21 -- I can make people happy -- I can make people laugh. 00:13:48:21 -- 00:13:53:07 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:13:53:07 -- 00:13:56:17 -- Was that funny? 00:13:56:17 -- 00:13:59:12 -- Rubbish -- no good. 00:13:59:12 -- 00:14:01:02 -- Cut. 00:14:03:19 -- 00:14:07:08 -- Well James -- let's go look for the yowie. 00:14:07:08 -- 00:14:08:15 -- Alright. 00:14:08:15 -- 00:14:13:02 -- I reckon I'm funny because I'm funny. 00:14:13:02 -- 00:14:17:13 -- I don't know how but I am funny. 00:14:17:13 -- 00:14:21:23 -- Oh. Oh shit yeah. Oh wow. 00:14:23:20 -- 00:14:27:07 -- I give up. 00:14:27:07 -- 00:14:33:13 -- Cut. Rubbish -- no good. Rubbish. Stop filming. 00:14:33:13 -- 00:14:35:04 -- Okay -- let's go. 00:14:35:04 -- 00:14:37:13 -- My foot's numb -- Darren. 00:14:37:13 -- 00:14:38:17 -- Well stand up. 00:14:38:17 -- 00:14:41:12 -- Put blood in it. 00:14:46:06 -- 00:14:49:06 -- Yeah -- wake it up. Okay. 00:14:49:06 -- 00:14:52:18 -- Bloody useless. Pair of knuckle heads.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 169

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:14:52:18 -- 00:14:55:13 -- Shit. Ready? 00:14:55:13 -- 00:14:57:03 -- Yep. 00:15:00:18 -- 00:15:02:09 -- Walk on it -- 00:15:02:09 -- 00:15:05:04 -- walk on it -- I've got you. Walk on it. 00:15:05:04 -- 00:15:08:14 -- Bloody James and Darren -- useless. 00:15:08:14 -- 00:15:13:21 -- I'm actually a bit not sure about catching him. 00:15:13:21 -- 00:15:20:08 -- Because he's a bit shy around people. If he's caught -- he'll be teased -- 00:15:20:08 -- 00:15:27:03 -- he'll be poked at -- people will poke things at him -- he'll be teased at. 00:15:27:03 -- 00:15:33:15 -- Yeah -- but I don't think he'd like to be caught. 00:15:33:15 -- 00:15:40:24 -- I think it likes to be left alone -- left in peace. 00:15:45:12 -- 00:15:48:07 -- [CIGARETTE LIGHTER] 00:15:48:07 -- 00:15:49:18 -- Malcolm. 00:15:49:18 -- 00:15:50:22 -- Hello girlie. 00:15:50:22 -- 00:15:53:17 -- Simone. I've been chatting to the boys and they 00:15:53:17 -- 00:15:56:12 -- don't want to solve the yowie mystery. 00:15:56:12 -- 00:16:00:05 -- Right. I don't like it. 00:16:00:05 -- 00:16:03:17 -- Make them sacked -- get them sacked. 00:16:03:17 -- 00:16:04:19 -- No. 00:16:04:19 -- 00:16:06:09 -- O - U - T Out of the show. 00:16:06:09 -- 00:16:09:04 -- Oh no -- we can't do that -- they're contracted. 00:16:09:04 -- 00:16:11:24 -- They've got to do twenty-six half hours. 00:16:11:24 -- 00:16:17:13 -- They can only be sacked if they bring the show into disrepute by doing hard drugs -- 00:16:17:13 -- 00:16:20:01 -- downloading internet porn -- 00:16:20:01 -- 00:16:21:13 -- Yeah. [GIGGLE] 00:16:21:13 -- 00:16:25:06 -- or engaging in promiscuous behaviour with prostitutes. 00:16:25:06 -- 00:16:28:20 -- We don't want to lose our funding -- we need to keep them. 00:16:28:20 -- 00:16:30:22 -- It's over my head -- I don't like them. 00:16:30:22 -- 00:16:32:12 -- Well -- we're keeping them. 00:16:32:12 -- 00:16:35:07 -- They're not solving the mystery -- they're useless. 00:16:35:07 -- 00:16:38:02 -- Out of the show -- O - U -T. Quit. Out. 00:16:38:02 -- 00:16:40:17 -- No -- we're going to keep them. Okay? 00:16:40:17 -- 00:16:41:13 -- Hmm. 00:16:41:13 -- 00:16:43:14 -- That's it -- we're keeping them. 00:16:43:14 -- 00:16:46:09 -- Alright. You can piss off now. 00:16:47:12 -- 00:16:50:12 -- Ring me. 00:16:50:12 -- 00:16:54:19 -- Shopping centres are probably the worst time to be near disabled people because 00:16:54:19 -- 00:16:58:22 -- you can walk into a store just going to buy -- I don't know -- a pair of shoes or 00:16:58:22 -- 00:17:03:13 -- something and there could be disabled people right in front of you and they're

APPENDICES -- PAGE 170

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:17:03:13 -- 00:17:08:01 -- just trying on the same pair of shoes as you. I mean -- they should have -- there's 00:17:08:01 -- 00:17:12:16 -- disabled toilets right -- you've got men’s -- female’s -- disable’s -- and that's fair enough 00:17:12:16 -- 00:17:16:11 -- like -- if you go into a shop and you're trying on some clothes -- 00:17:16:11 -- 00:17:20:08 -- men's change rooms -- women's change rooms -- disabled change rooms. 00:17:20:08 -- 00:17:23:08 -- I used to have a close friend called Cameron Gillespie once 00:17:23:08 -- 00:17:25:18 -- but I've sort of lost contact with him. 00:17:25:18 -- 00:17:29:15 -- And I had lots of other friends but I've lost contact with them all. 00:17:29:15 -- 00:17:32:22 -- Well -- I did have their phone numbers once -- 00:17:32:22 -- 00:17:36:05 -- but I sort of threw them out because I lost contact with them. 00:17:36:05 -- 00:17:39:03 -- But I am trying to make some new friends. 00:17:39:03 -- 00:17:40:05 -- I got it. 00:17:40:05 -- 00:17:41:14 -- Oh -- thanks Will. 00:17:41:14 -- 00:17:42:12 -- You're right. 00:17:42:12 -- 00:17:44:10 -- We've got a problem with these two blokes. 00:17:44:10 -- 00:17:47:10 -- Yeah mate -- we've got a massive problem. What are we going to do about it? 00:17:47:10 -- 00:17:49:05 -- Ah -- get rid of them. 00:17:49:05 -- 00:17:52:05 -- Well from what I've heard I don't think we can get rid of them -- 00:17:52:05 -- 00:17:54:15 -- I don't think we can sack them -- we've got to make them quit. 00:17:54:15 -- 00:17:57:02 -- Make them quit. Put ants in their tent or something. 00:17:57:02 -- 00:17:59:06 -- Ants in the tent -- mate -- whatever you want to do. 00:17:59:06 -- 00:18:01:22 -- Do something to the car -- do something to the tent -- 00:18:01:22 -- 00:18:04:24 -- I don't give a fuck let's just get them out of here and start again. 00:18:04:24 -- 00:18:08:09 -- Now these two boys I can't sack them. I'll make them quit -- 00:18:08:09 -- 00:18:12:00 -- make their lives miserable -- so make them quit. 00:18:12:00 -- 00:18:14:04 -- I've had enough -- Over my head. 00:18:14:04 -- 00:18:16:18 -- Special people. [LAUGHTER] 00:18:16:18 -- 00:18:18:22 -- [COUGHING] 00:18:18:22 -- 00:18:21:09 -- Special -- my arse. 00:18:21:09 -- 00:18:22:13 -- [SNAP]

MYSTERY #2: MIN MIN LIGHTS

00:18:27:01 -- 00:18:29:07 -- [FLICKERING LIGHTS] 00:18:39:13 -- 00:18:43:10 -- Maybe we're going to find some girlfriend for you -- hey? 00:18:43:10 -- 00:18:44:13 -- How do you like that? 00:18:44:13 -- 00:18:46:24 -- Might find a girlfriend.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 171

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:18:46:24 -- 00:18:47:14 -- Yeah. 00:18:47:14 -- 00:18:51:06 -- What colour hair -- blonde -- you like blonde hair -- or? 00:18:51:06 -- 00:18:54:09 -- Yep -- I like blonde hair. 00:18:54:09 -- 00:18:58:14 -- Yeah. Well -- big -- small -- skinny -- chubby -- what shape? 00:18:58:14 -- 00:19:02:11 -- Skinny -- yeah. 00:19:05:08 -- 00:19:10:00 -- Right go up there -- go in this property -- knock on the door. But there's a problem. 00:19:10:00 -- 00:19:12:16 -- There's five vicious dogs. 00:19:12:16 -- 00:19:13:11 -- How many? 00:19:13:11 -- 00:19:17:21 -- Five mongrel dogs. They'll take your leg off -- take your arm off -- whatever. 00:19:17:21 -- 00:19:22:16 -- If you don't want to do the job you'll quit out of the program straight away. 00:19:22:16 -- 00:19:23:21 -- Yes. 00:19:23:21 -- 00:19:28:03 -- It's up to you -- I'm not putting pressure on you -- it's up to you -- if you want to do it. 00:19:28:03 -- 00:19:31:09 -- If you don't do it -- you have to quit out of this job. 00:19:31:09 -- 00:19:32:11 -- Come on James. 00:19:32:11 -- 00:19:34:03 -- Okay -- Malcolm. 00:19:34:11 -- 00:19:36:17 -- James -- get your shirt on too please. 00:19:39:09 -- 00:19:42:05 -- Are we going in James? 00:19:42:05 -- 00:19:43:06 -- Yep. 00:19:43:06 -- 00:19:44:19 -- Look worried. 00:19:44:19 -- 00:19:49:15 -- Hello -- anyone there? 00:19:49:15 -- 00:19:52:16 -- It was that close -- like from here to the fence. 00:19:52:16 -- 00:19:56:13 -- And being that big -- and I stopped the truck 00:19:56:13 -- 00:20:00:01 -- and I got the gun out the window and faced it exactly where it is. 00:20:00:01 -- 00:20:03:10 -- And I shot it -- I know that the bullet went through it -- 00:20:03:10 -- 00:20:05:22 -- but nothing happened it just continued. 00:20:05:22 -- 00:20:06:18 -- Oh wow. 00:20:06:18 -- 00:20:08:14 -- I wasted two bullets for nothing. 00:20:08:14 -- 00:20:09:23 -- Oh no. [LAUGHTER] 00:20:09:23 -- 00:20:11:13 -- Jimmy. 00:20:11:13 -- 00:20:15:10 -- Jimmy -- Jimmy -- get. 00:20:15:10 -- 00:20:19:07 -- Any questions? Are there any single girls in this town? 00:20:19:07 -- 00:20:25:05 -- Single girls in town? Not without kids. [LAUGHTER] 00:20:25:05 -- 00:20:29:21 -- **** was my girlfriend. We'd been for four years. 00:20:29:21 -- 00:20:34:04 -- Her mother didn't care for her. Didn't look after her -- 00:20:34:04 -- 00:20:37:21 -- no one liked her -- so I looked after her for a while. 00:20:37:21 -- 00:20:41:18 -- She was my girlfriend -- I used to get a root every fortnight. 00:20:41:18 -- 00:20:46:16 -- We had a bit of fun together -- but no more fun. 00:20:46:16 -- 00:20:54:17 -- Government health locked her away -- put her away -- she went silly -- loopy -- bad unit.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 172

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:20:54:17 -- 00:20:58:14 -- I haven't got **** no more -- I'll have to go and find another fish in the sea. 00:20:58:14 -- 00:21:02:21 -- Plenty of fishes in the sea -- go catch it. 00:21:02:21 -- 00:21:06:18 -- **** said I got brain damage -- and she's bloody bullshit. 00:21:06:18 -- 00:21:11:12 -- She's locked up -- I'm working -- yeah. 00:21:11:12 -- 00:21:16:13 -- I'm doing this for a reason -- because I don't like them two pair of bastards. 00:21:16:13 -- 00:21:20:10 -- They won't get into this bloody door again. 00:21:24:00 -- 00:21:27:22 -- The door doesn't work. 00:21:27:22 -- 00:21:31:19 -- Come on. 00:21:35:00 -- 00:21:38:22 -- [MOANING] 00:21:38:22 -- 00:21:41:13 -- Darren -- they're having sex. 00:21:43:08 -- 00:21:47:15 -- Right -- I've got these two dolls made up -- Darren and James -- voodoo dolls -- 00:21:47:15 -- 00:21:49:01 -- I've had enough. 00:21:49:01 -- 00:21:51:02 -- It's Malcolm. Darren is that you? 00:21:51:02 -- 00:21:54:01 -- [HAIRDRYER] James -- shut up 00:21:54:01 -- 00:21:55:12 -- Hello. 00:21:55:12 -- 00:21:58:04 -- Um -- I'm just going to do a test on you. 00:21:58:04 -- 00:21:59:06 -- Okay. 00:21:59:06 -- 00:22:01:24 -- Can you feel that? 00:22:03:18 -- 00:22:07:09 -- Darren -- did you get that? 00:22:07:09 -- 00:22:11:19 -- Bloody useless. Take that out. 00:22:11:19 -- 00:22:15:16 -- Didn't bloody work. 00:22:15:16 -- 00:22:18:02 -- [LAUGHTER] Bloody hell. 00:22:20:23 -- 00:22:24:20 -- [WINDSCREEN BLADES DRY WIPING] 00:22:28:17 -- 00:22:29:19 -- Hi. 00:22:29:19 -- 00:22:31:17 -- Who are you fellas? 00:22:31:17 -- 00:22:36:13 -- Do you reckon the min min light is an alien or not an alien? 00:22:36:13 -- 00:22:37:14 -- No. 00:22:37:14 -- 00:22:41:11 -- Why do you think that? 00:22:41:11 -- 00:22:45:11 -- Because I don't believe in aliens -- and I reckon it's gas. 00:22:45:11 -- 00:22:47:17 -- Have you got that -- James? 00:22:47:17 -- 00:22:52:09 -- Yep. I put: kangaroo -- dip your lights. Yep. 00:22:54:07 -- 00:22:59:17 -- Okay you boys -- jump over the cliff -- too easy -- anyone can do it. Too easy. 00:22:59:17 -- 00:23:03:04 -- One big jump and you're over. 00:23:03:04 -- 00:23:04:11 -- Malcolm? 00:23:04:11 -- 00:23:06:23 -- Oh hello love -- you got a problem? 00:23:06:23 -- 00:23:09:03 -- Did I hear something about a cliff? 00:23:09:03 -- 00:23:10:12 -- Yes -- you did. 00:23:10:12 -- 00:23:13:00 -- Oh -- no. No jumping -- no cliff. 00:23:13:00 -- 00:23:14:18 -- Okay -- leave it up to you? 00:23:14:18 -- 00:23:18:15 -- No -- I'm leaving it up to you -- go tell them no cliff -- no jumping. Okay?

APPENDICES -- PAGE 173

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:23:18:15 -- 00:23:20:14 -- Okay -- I can do that then. 00:23:20:14 -- 00:23:22:00 -- Yeah -- okay -- alrighty. 00:23:22:00 -- 00:23:23:16 -- Get back to me. 00:23:24:16 -- 00:23:31:09 -- Well -- I've seen one. One time ago when I was out on the station -- 00:23:31:09 -- 00:23:36:09 -- And I've seen that it's coming down the road. 00:23:36:09 -- 00:23:40:24 -- When you went back in town and tell everyone you saw one 00:23:40:24 -- 00:23:44:21 -- did they believe you or did they go -- oh no -- your pulling my leg. 00:23:44:21 -- 00:23:48:18 -- They probably said -- no you've been in the pub for too long. 00:23:48:18 -- 00:23:51:06 -- [LAUGHTER] That's what happened -- yeah. 00:23:51:06 -- 00:23:55:09 -- Some people say it's true -- some people say it's not true 00:23:55:09 -- 00:23:58:04 -- What do you think about it? 00:23:58:04 -- 00:24:01:20 -- I reckon it's true. Yeah? Yeah. 00:24:01:20 -- 00:24:04:24 -- Thank you for that. 00:24:06:24 -- 00:24:10:21 -- [MOTORCYCLE ENGINE] 00:24:11:23 -- 00:24:13:16 -- Hi -- I'm Darren. 00:24:13:16 -- 00:24:15:04 -- Hi I'm Annie. 00:24:15:04 -- 00:24:19:01 -- Yeah -- I'll make a move on a girl -- but first we'll go on a few dates first 00:24:19:01 -- 00:24:23:07 -- to get to know a girlfriend a bit more before I make a move. 00:24:23:07 -- 00:24:25:07 -- Because you don't make a move straight away 00:24:25:07 -- 00:24:29:04 -- because you have to know them a bit more first -- before you do that. 00:24:29:04 -- 00:24:31:05 -- That's how the system works. 00:24:31:05 -- 00:24:35:02 -- It just takes time -- you have to give it time to happen. 00:24:35:02 -- 00:24:37:21 -- Are there any single girls in the town? 00:24:37:21 -- 00:24:41:18 -- Single girls in town? Well there's one right there. 00:24:41:18 -- 00:24:43:06 -- [LAUGHTER] Oh -- wow. 00:24:43:06 -- 00:24:45:19 -- I don't know -- I think there's a few. 00:24:45:19 -- 00:24:50:16 -- ’Cos if you attempt something straight away -- it’ll get all a bit weird and unusual -- yeah. 00:24:50:16 -- 00:24:54:10 -- Can I ask you a question mate? Do you like dingoes? 00:24:54:10 -- 00:24:55:04 -- Yeah. 00:24:55:04 -- 00:24:56:09 -- You do? 00:24:56:09 -- 00:24:59:20 -- Do you think they should be shot or left alone? 00:24:59:20 -- 00:25:00:22 -- Left alone. 00:25:00:22 -- 00:25:01:21 -- Left alone. Why? 00:25:01:21 -- 00:25:03:23 -- Is it cruel if we skin them? 00:25:05:00 -- 00:25:07:17 -- Seriously -- this time we've got to take it to the next level. 00:25:07:17 -- 00:25:10:08 -- We've got to do something -- we want them off the set -- gone. 00:25:10:08 -- 00:25:12:12 -- Yeah -- we both do -- what are we going to do? 00:25:12:12 -- 00:25:13:17 -- I don't know it's up to you.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 174

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:25:13:17 -- 00:25:15:01 -- Can I leave it to you? 00:25:15:01 -- 00:25:16:11 -- No -- I'll leave it to you. 00:25:16:11 -- 00:25:17:12 -- Oh -- righto. 00:25:17:12 -- 00:25:18:12 -- Alright? 00:25:18:12 -- 00:25:20:01 -- Pair of bloody knuckle heads. 00:25:25:04 -- 00:25:27:20 -- Hmm -- very interesting. 00:25:30:10 -- 00:25:33:01 -- Two blokes -- I want to get two of them -- get off -- you know -- 00:25:33:01 -- 00:25:39:08 -- get rid of them -- take them out -- shoot them -- drug them -- poison them -- 00:25:39:08 -- 00:25:43:11 -- drown them -- you know how -- you know -- where you come from. 00:25:43:11 -- 00:25:47:11 -- Do you know how to do it? They do it over in your country -- a lot of killing -- killing. 00:25:47:11 -- 00:25:51:01 -- Violence. 00:25:51:01 -- 00:25:56:00 -- Is the bomb going to work? I want the bastards blown up. 00:25:57:16 -- 00:26:00:07 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:26:00:07 -- 00:26:05:05 -- Rolling. Rolling! 00:26:05:05 -- 00:26:08:17 -- Yep. Action. 00:26:23:21 -- 00:26:26:12 -- We're here. 00:26:26:12 -- 00:26:28:24 -- Didn't bloody work. 00:26:28:24 -- 00:26:31:15 -- Do you know anything about min min lights? 00:26:31:15 -- 00:26:33:13 -- Bloody useless -- bloody thing. 00:26:33:13 -- 00:26:35:05 -- Well tell me about it. 00:26:35:21 -- 00:26:38:12 -- [BANG] 00:26:38:12 -- 00:26:41:01 -- I tell you -- it's aliens -- okay? 00:26:41:01 -- 00:26:44:02 -- There's UFO here -- alien here. 00:26:44:02 -- 00:26:46:14 -- I don't agree with you -- Darren. 00:26:46:14 -- 00:26:48:17 -- Most people do not lie. 00:26:48:17 -- 00:26:51:03 -- People want something to believe in -- Darren. 00:26:51:03 -- 00:26:54:03 -- It's just their minds playing tricks on them -- Darren. 00:26:54:03 -- 00:26:57:13 -- They're just seeing things -- it's just their imagination -- Darren. 00:26:57:13 -- 00:27:00:04 -- Well what do you think it is? 00:27:00:04 -- 00:27:02:02 -- Just gas from the ground. 00:27:02:02 -- 00:27:03:18 -- Where did the gas come from? 00:27:03:18 -- 00:27:05:07 -- The ground. 00:27:05:07 -- 00:27:07:02 -- You did not say that before. 00:27:07:02 -- 00:27:09:02 -- Einstein -- it's just gas -- Einstein. 00:27:09:02 -- 00:27:10:16 -- Who's bloody Einstein? 00:27:10:16 -- 00:27:12:06 -- It's gas -- everyone knows. 00:27:12:06 -- 00:27:14:01 -- This is bullshit. 00:27:15:04 -- 00:27:17:02 -- [SLAM] 00:27:18:06 -- 00:27:21:02 -- They haven't solved bloody nothing. 00:27:21:02 -- 00:27:24:12 -- They’re two useless boys -- like tits on a bull.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 175

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:27:24:12 -- 00:27:27:18 -- I don't know why. Tits on bull. 00:27:27:18 -- 00:27:30:09 -- But the bull's got no tits. 00:27:30:09 -- 00:27:34:02 -- I need one professional bloke to do this job. 00:27:34:02 -- 00:27:37:20 -- No amateurs -- professionals.

MYSTERY #3: BIG CAT

00:27:39:17 -- 00:27:43:10 -- [PANTHER SNARL] 00:27:43:10 -- 00:27:47:03 -- [TRAFFIC] 00:27:55:22 -- 00:28:03:00 -- We use that photo to illustrate to people what the cat might look like because all of 00:28:03:00 -- 00:28:08:13 -- the people who have seen the cat tell us it's big -- it’s black - - it looks kind of mean. 00:28:08:13 -- 00:28:12:24 -- If me and Darren do catch the cat -- 00:28:12:24 -- 00:28:16:17 -- and we bring it to your office and we'll show you a panther... 00:28:16:17 -- 00:28:19:09 -- What -- are you going to have it on a lead or in a cage? 00:28:19:09 -- 00:28:20:03 -- Cage. 00:28:20:03 -- 00:28:22:07 -- Yeah -- please -- yeah. Don't bring it on the lead. 00:28:22:07 -- 00:28:23:07 -- I won't. 00:28:23:07 -- 00:28:24:14 -- I think it could get ugly. 00:28:24:14 -- 00:28:25:23 -- Me and Darren won't do that. 00:28:25:23 -- 00:28:29:00 -- Yeah. Fantastic -- oh that would be great. 00:28:29:00 -- 00:28:30:24 -- And we can do a nice big front page story about you two. 00:28:30:24 -- 00:28:33:02 -- Yeah -- and then we'd be really famous -- hey? 00:28:33:02 -- 00:28:34:02 -- We will. 00:28:34:02 -- 00:28:37:02 -- Intrepid duo catch cat. [LAUGHTER] 00:28:37:02 -- 00:28:40:06 -- Wow. What does that mean? 00:28:40:06 -- 00:28:42:17 -- Yeah -- exactly. [LAUGHTER] 00:28:42:17 -- 00:28:44:00 -- Oh wow. Yay. 00:28:44:00 -- 00:28:45:08 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:28:45:08 -- 00:28:46:16 -- We're on the paper. 00:28:48:02 -- 00:28:51:20 -- Yay. Just printed off a front page here for you. 00:28:51:20 -- 00:28:53:14 -- Fantastic -- look at that. 00:28:53:14 -- 00:28:57:07 -- Oh yeah -- in the big lights: Darren and James found cat. 00:28:57:07 -- 00:29:01:00 -- Maybe we're going to be in the front page on the paper. 00:29:01:00 -- 00:29:05:07 -- That be excellent. That means everyone can read it 00:29:05:07 -- 00:29:09:20 -- and we'd be really -- really famous. 00:29:09:20 -- 00:29:15:10 -- Everyone notice us and wine -- drinking -- party all night. Oh yeah. 00:29:15:10 -- 00:29:19:03 -- People would invite us around for dinner. 00:29:19:03 -- 00:29:22:21 -- People would approach us in the street and want our autograph. 00:29:22:21 -- 00:29:25:02 -- People would treat me differently. 00:29:25:02 -- 00:29:28:09 -- Much different to when I was back a long time ago. 00:29:28:09 -- 00:29:30:15 -- People would treat me differently.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 176

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:29:30:15 -- 00:29:33:08 -- [SPLASH] 00:29:33:08 -- 00:29:37:08 -- [PHONE RINGING] 00:29:38:21 -- 00:29:40:24 -- Hello. 00:29:40:24 -- 00:29:42:07 -- Hey mate. 00:29:42:07 -- 00:29:43:21 -- Hi -- what's up? 00:29:43:21 -- 00:29:46:11 -- Oh these two clowns -- I want you to knock them off. 00:29:46:11 -- 00:29:49:21 -- Their names? Or a name? 00:29:49:21 -- 00:29:52:02 -- James and Darren. 00:29:52:02 -- 00:29:55:11 -- They're bloody clowns -- I don't like them -- I don't want them -- get them off the set. 00:29:55:11 -- 00:29:58:09 -- Okay -- it's going to cost you. 00:29:58:09 -- 00:30:00:01 -- Cost a bit -- hey? 00:30:00:01 -- 00:30:01:19 -- Ten grand. 00:30:01:19 -- 00:30:04:03 -- Ten grand -- ten gees? 00:30:04:03 -- 00:30:06:09 -- It's five grand per head. 00:30:06:09 -- 00:30:08:15 -- You do the job right and you get paid right. 00:30:08:15 -- 00:30:12:21 -- There is a slight problem. Malcolm. 00:30:12:21 -- 00:30:15:16 -- I do have to bring my carer. 00:30:15:16 -- 00:30:20:05 -- Carer? Yeah -- is she spunky or what? Is she good looking? 00:30:20:05 -- 00:30:22:07 -- Reasonable. 00:30:22:07 -- 00:30:28:02 -- Alright -- bring her along. If she's pretty enough -- I'll give her five hundred bucks. 00:30:28:02 -- 00:30:31:12 -- Name the time and the place and I'll be there. 00:30:31:12 -- 00:30:33:18 -- Tomorrow afternoon -- shoot them out. 00:30:33:18 -- 00:30:35:24 -- Okay -- bye. 00:30:40:18 -- 00:30:46:02 -- That's good -- he'll get the job done. Very good. 00:30:51:00 -- 00:30:55:02 -- Hi -- my name's Carla. I'm David's carer. 00:30:55:02 -- 00:30:58:09 -- We've been together for quite a few years now. 00:30:58:09 -- 00:31:01:21 -- It's kind of almost embarrassing to say -- 00:31:01:21 -- 00:31:06:13 -- I mean the connection we have is just so special. 00:31:06:13 -- 00:31:13:17 -- I really am very lucky -- like -- you know -- sometimes on special days -- I'll stay over and stuff so… 00:31:13:17 -- 00:31:18:05 -- Yeah -- I just don't want to leave. And I mean he’s so funny. 00:31:18:05 -- 00:31:23:12 -- You should like -- I don't know if he will because he's a bit shy -- 00:31:23:12 -- 00:31:26:19 -- but his stand up comedy routines -- man oh man. 00:31:26:19 -- 00:31:30:07 -- Shooting -- stand up comedy. Shooting -- stand up comedy. 00:31:30:07 -- 00:31:35:08 -- I don't know -- I think there are a lot of people that kind of have two sides to 00:31:35:08 -- 00:31:41:06 -- their personality but are not brave enough in themselves to explore that. 00:31:41:06 -- 00:31:44:13 -- I think he finds humour in the hunt even. 00:31:44:13 -- 00:31:47:20 -- As the hunter he laughs and mocks his prey

APPENDICES -- PAGE 177

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:31:47:20 -- 00:31:52:05 -- and -- you know -- I think as a stand up comedian -- I think a lot of the time he considers 00:31:52:05 -- 00:31:56:06 -- his audience to be his prey and he is still the hunter. 00:31:56:06 -- 00:31:57:09 -- [KNOCK ON DOOR] 00:31:57:09 -- 00:32:02:15 -- David -- it's me -- can I help with anything? Bathing -- showering? 00:32:02:15 -- 00:32:04:07 -- No. 00:32:04:07 -- 00:32:07:22 -- People say it's a hard job -- it's not a hard job. 00:32:07:22 -- 00:32:09:10 -- Okay. 00:32:09:10 -- 00:32:11:16 -- I'm blessed. 00:32:11:16 -- 00:32:17:10 -- I have a funny man -- who can hunt for our food. 00:32:31:06 -- 00:32:35:24 -- David -- why can't we be in the same car? I don't understand. 00:32:35:24 -- 00:32:39:04 -- Because you distract me. 00:32:39:04 -- 00:32:42:16 -- If I promise not to touch you -- can I be in the same car as you? 00:32:42:16 -- 00:32:45:23 -- No way that's going to happen. 00:32:55:20 -- 00:32:58:03 -- Big cat's here -- scratches the tree. 00:32:58:03 -- 00:33:00:23 -- About there like that -- all the way down to here like this. 00:33:00:23 -- 00:33:03:10 -- How loud was the panther's growl? 00:33:03:10 -- 00:33:08:13 -- The growl -- well I… actually I've heard it scream for a partner. 00:33:08:13 -- 00:33:11:20 -- Yeah? What does it sound like? 00:33:11:20 -- 00:33:16:04 -- Oh it sounds like a thousand tom cats on steroids -- it's huge. 00:33:16:04 -- 00:33:18:03 -- Can it be patted? 00:33:18:03 -- 00:33:21:21 -- No -- this is not a feral animal -- this is a wild animal. 00:33:25:19 -- 00:33:29:01 -- Where is the... 00:33:29:01 -- 00:33:31:22 -- What’s your problem? 00:33:31:22 -- 00:33:34:15 -- I can't find the furry thing for the boom. 00:33:34:15 -- 00:33:37:03 -- You know the thing I mean though? It goes... 00:33:37:03 -- 00:33:38:08 -- Yeah -- the furry part. 00:33:38:08 -- 00:33:39:10 -- Yeah -- the -- yeah. 00:33:39:10 -- 00:33:41:21 -- I found it. 00:33:41:21 -- 00:33:44:14 -- Did you take it? 00:33:44:14 -- 00:33:46:17 -- No -- I found it. 00:33:46:17 -- 00:33:47:19 -- You sure? 00:33:47:19 -- 00:33:48:22 -- Yes. 00:33:48:22 -- 00:33:50:03 -- Are you sure you didn't take it? 00:33:50:03 -- 00:33:52:01 -- No I didn't take it -- I found it. Positive. 00:33:52:01 -- 00:33:55:06 -- I'm pretty sure he found it -- because he stole it. 00:33:55:06 -- 00:33:57:11 -- Did you find it did you? 00:33:57:11 -- 00:34:00:09 -- Yeah -- James had it. Because he stole it. 00:34:00:09 -- 00:34:03:18 -- I don't know -- I saw a thing on TV ages ago

APPENDICES -- PAGE 178

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:34:03:18 -- 00:34:08:04 -- about disabled people -- crime rates and statistics and stuff - - 00:34:08:04 -- 00:34:13:11 -- just basically saying disabled people steal. I don't know -- they’re just criminals and... 00:34:13:11 -- 00:34:16:19 -- Let's get a move on and do a take -- okay. 00:34:16:19 -- 00:34:17:21 -- Alright. 00:34:17:21 -- 00:34:19:18 -- We can shoot again. 00:34:22:03 -- 00:34:28:05 -- I felt something nudge the back of the car. and what appeared to be some type 00:34:28:05 -- 00:34:33:06 -- of black shadow walk in front of the car probably about eight feet in front of it. 00:34:33:06 -- 00:34:36:17 -- And then I realised my window was down. 00:34:36:17 -- 00:34:38:04 -- Oh. [LAUGHTER] 00:34:38:04 -- 00:34:41:07 -- A lot of people out there think it's bullshit but it's not. 00:34:41:07 -- 00:34:42:09 -- Yeah? 00:34:42:09 -- 00:34:47:06 -- Yeah. You get people start saying things to you and you think -- oh piss off. 00:34:47:06 -- 00:34:51:17 -- What would you know? You don't live up there. I bloody heard it. 00:34:51:17 -- 00:34:55:09 -- I do -- I love him. I'd have him as my pet if I could. 00:34:55:09 -- 00:34:59:16 -- I've had dreams and that -- that I will see him again. 00:34:59:16 -- 00:35:02:07 -- Because Chris knows I'm psychic. 00:35:02:07 -- 00:35:03:08 -- Oh yeah. 00:35:03:08 -- 00:35:05:16 -- And I've had visions of seeing him. 00:35:05:16 -- 00:35:09:01 -- Oh wow -- Can you see him now? 00:35:09:01 -- 00:35:13:16 -- No -- just of a night -- when I go to bed. 00:35:13:16 -- 00:35:20:04 -- I see myself -- him walking down my drive way and I walk out the front and I see him 00:35:20:04 -- 00:35:26:11 -- there and I'm not scared of him -- I pat him on the head... 00:35:26:11 -- 00:35:27:12 -- Oh yeah. 00:35:27:12 -- 00:35:28:13 -- ...and we walk away. 00:35:28:13 -- 00:35:29:14 -- Wow. 00:35:32:15 -- 00:35:37:11 -- Wow -- isn't this just the best place? 00:35:37:11 -- 00:35:39:00 -- I suppose. 00:35:39:00 -- 00:35:43:10 -- Oh -- a romantic place for our special day David. 00:35:43:10 -- 00:35:47:07 -- I'm busy -- I've got a job I have to get done. 00:35:47:07 -- 00:35:53:00 -- I don't need any distractions from anyone right now. I've got a lot riding on this. 00:35:53:00 -- 00:35:56:11 -- But see if I hold that gun then we can hold hands and... 00:35:56:11 -- 00:35:58:15 -- No it's okay -- I've got it. 00:35:58:15 -- 00:36:00:02 -- You hiding? 00:36:00:02 -- 00:36:01:20 -- Yep -- I'm hiding. 00:36:01:20 -- 00:36:05:16 -- I'll put the mouse down for the cat to get it. Alright ready -- ready -- go. 00:36:10:05 -- 00:36:15:17 -- Oh -- didn't go very long. Let's do it again. Alright.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 179

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:36:15:17 -- 00:36:17:09 -- Are you hiding? 00:36:17:09 -- 00:36:18:19 -- Yep -- let it rip buddy. 00:36:18:19 -- 00:36:22:03 -- We're going to get the mouse with the mouse... [LAUGHTER] 00:36:22:03 -- 00:36:24:19 -- Oh shit -- it's broken. 00:36:24:19 -- 00:36:25:20 -- Cut. 00:36:25:20 -- 00:36:27:22 -- It's a dead mouse. 00:36:27:22 -- 00:36:29:12 -- Bloody useless -- don't like it. 00:36:29:12 -- 00:36:32:14 -- Well -- we could skin it. 00:36:32:14 -- 00:36:33:15 -- Useless. Crap. 00:36:33:15 -- 00:36:38:05 -- And then what do we do when we skin it? 00:36:38:05 -- 00:36:39:06 -- Probably eat it. 00:36:39:06 -- 00:36:41:22 -- Rubbish -- stop filming -- cut. 00:36:41:22 -- 00:36:45:03 -- Oh David -- isn't this just beautiful? 00:36:45:03 -- 00:36:47:11 -- Yeah -- yeah. I've got a job I need to do. 00:36:47:11 -- 00:36:53:05 -- Beautiful green trees -- and blue sky -- and the birds are twittering. 00:36:53:05 -- 00:36:58:17 -- It's just perfect. It is a perfect special day for our romantic picnic. 00:36:58:17 -- 00:37:02:15 -- Look and I even brought the special rug -- the one with the plastic on the back 00:37:02:15 -- 00:37:04:21 -- so that we don't get piles. 00:37:04:21 -- 00:37:09:20 -- I just need to have a bit of quiet so I can concentrate. 00:37:09:20 -- 00:37:14:01 -- Well -- you know David this is my day too -- like -- I've spent a lot of time organising this 00:37:14:01 -- 00:37:16:13 -- and this is really quite important for me. 00:37:16:13 -- 00:37:17:18 -- Yeah I know that. 00:37:17:18 -- 00:37:19:17 -- Do you want me to bring your rug a little bit closer over to mine? 00:37:19:17 -- 00:37:20:18 -- No -- it's alright. 00:37:20:18 -- 00:37:23:18 -- Okay -- can I bring my rug a little bit closer over to yours? 00:37:23:18 -- 00:37:26:13 -- I need to have a bit of space between -- 00:37:26:13 -- 00:37:30:03 -- so I can concentrate and focus on what I've got to do. 00:37:30:03 -- 00:37:31:23 -- Okay -- I understand. 00:37:31:23 -- 00:37:38:15 -- As long as there's no one talking around me -- I can focus on what I'm meant to do. 00:37:38:15 -- 00:37:41:17 -- Oh -- I can be quiet. I can be quiet. 00:37:41:17 -- 00:37:45:05 -- Would you like a cup of tea or coffee? Because I've got the thermos in the car. 00:37:45:05 -- 00:37:46:06 -- No. 00:37:46:06 -- 00:37:47:09 -- Action. 00:37:47:09 -- 00:37:53:01 -- We're here to put the milk down to lure the cat in. 00:37:56:22 -- 00:37:58:23 -- Where’s the milk? 00:37:58:23 -- 00:38:00:24 -- I forgot. 00:38:00:24 -- 00:38:04:19 -- Well go back and get it. Oh God.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 180

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:38:04:19 -- 00:38:08:07 -- Useless -- bloody nincompoops -- useless -- cut. 00:38:18:01 -- 00:38:20:08 -- It's time for your medication -- David. 00:38:20:08 -- 00:38:21:19 -- Not now. 00:38:24:03 -- 00:38:27:04 -- [GUN SHOTS] 00:38:32:19 -- 00:38:34:11 -- [GUN SHOT] 00:38:34:11 -- 00:38:36:07 -- [LAUGHTER] 00:38:36:07 -- 00:38:38:20 -- What was that? 00:38:38:20 -- 00:38:41:01 -- I don't know. 00:38:43:12 -- 00:38:46:13 -- A sandwich? 00:38:46:13 -- 00:38:48:21 -- What happened? 00:38:48:21 -- 00:38:51:22 -- There were gun shots. 00:38:54:24 -- 00:38:56:02 -- Hey Malcolm! 00:38:56:02 -- 00:38:57:16 -- Hey -- what do you want? 00:38:57:16 -- 00:38:59:09 -- Malcolm -- are you trying to kill us? 00:38:59:09 -- 00:39:00:09 -- Yes. 00:39:00:09 -- 00:39:02:16 -- How are you going to dispose of our bodies? 00:39:02:16 -- 00:39:04:11 -- Don't know -- meat works. 00:39:04:11 -- 00:39:06:12 -- Do you think me and Darren have any talent? 00:39:06:12 -- 00:39:10:20 -- None -- none at all. You're like flower pot men. 00:39:10:20 -- 00:39:12:13 -- Flower pot men. Fair enough. 00:39:12:13 -- 00:39:16:07 -- In the army -- I wouldn't put you in the front line -- I'd put you in the back. 00:39:16:07 -- 00:39:18:02 -- Okay -- back line. Back line. 00:39:18:02 -- 00:39:20:11 -- What do you think about two sexy girls coming on the scene? 00:39:20:11 -- 00:39:21:18 -- Pretty good. 00:39:21:18 -- 00:39:23:18 -- We'll go to strip joints -- we'll go to bars. 00:39:23:18 -- 00:39:25:13 -- Malcolm -- are you trying to kill us? 00:39:25:13 -- 00:39:28:14 -- Yeah. We've been through that. 00:39:28:14 -- 00:39:32:11 -- This is all the cat pictures on the wall here. 00:39:32:11 -- 00:39:36:17 -- Yeah. Good wall. A lot of things there. 00:39:36:17 -- 00:39:38:09 -- Now the cat… 00:39:38:09 -- 00:39:39:10 -- Darren? 00:39:39:10 -- 00:39:40:10 -- Yeah? 00:39:40:10 -- 00:39:43:11 -- We're never going to catch this cat -- Darren. 00:39:43:11 -- 00:39:47:16 -- Seriously. You're kidding yourself -- Darren. 00:39:50:17 -- 00:39:53:18 -- We've got lots of brain. 00:39:55:16 -- 00:39:59:21 -- [ANGRY MUMBLING] 00:39:59:21 -- 00:40:03:21 -- I don't know what we do now. 00:40:03:21 -- 00:40:08:15 -- Let’s leave the cat here -- and we'll go on the next mystery. 00:40:23:07 -- 00:40:28:00 -- Who's that character? 00:40:28:00 -- 00:40:31:01 -- Ah -- he's some sort of activist. 00:40:31:01 -- 00:40:35:00 -- James called his mother and said you were trying to kill him. 00:40:35:00 -- 00:40:37:02 -- Yeah -- are we in a bit of trouble now? 00:40:37:02 -- 00:40:39:11 -- Yeah -- yeah -- could be in a bit of trouble.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 181

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

MYSTERY #4: SPOOK HILL

00:41:15:18 -- 00:41:20:20 -- Ever since I was a kid I always felt there was something around me. 00:41:20:20 -- 00:41:25:10 -- You know -- and mum used to say -- oh -- it's just your guardian angel or it's just butterflies 00:41:25:10 -- 00:41:30:10 -- or it's just -- you know -- and I kind of felt that it was a bit more than that. 00:41:30:10 -- 00:41:35:06 -- Over there -- there's one over there in amongst those tree there -- definitely. 00:41:35:06 -- 00:41:40:11 -- I keep being drawn over there so -- definitely -- there's something over there. 00:41:40:11 -- 00:41:42:19 -- Definitely. 00:41:42:19 -- 00:41:47:06 -- The first thing that you probably need to do -- is you need to kind of stand really still 00:41:47:06 -- 00:41:49:07 -- and see if you can feel anything around you. 00:41:49:07 -- 00:41:52:08 -- So -- just stand really still for a minute and see if you can feel anything. 00:41:52:08 -- 00:41:54:11 -- Can you feel anything around you? 00:41:54:11 -- 00:41:58:10 -- Hmm -- no. 00:41:58:10 -- 00:42:03:03 -- I can sense one near us now -- but I can tell you -- 00:42:03:03 -- 00:42:07:09 -- you probably will not see it until I actually take the photograph. 00:42:07:09 -- 00:42:08:18 -- No way. 00:42:08:18 -- 00:42:10:23 -- Yeah -- that's what happens to me. 00:42:10:23 -- 00:42:15:20 -- That's great -- that's excellent. I can see something behind you Darren. 00:42:15:20 -- 00:42:17:19 -- What? 00:42:17:19 -- 00:42:20:04 -- There's actually like a shimmer of light just behind you. 00:42:20:04 -- 00:42:22:14 -- Yeah -- okay -- take the photo hurry up. 00:42:22:14 -- 00:42:24:20 -- I took a photo. I took a photo. I reckon when it comes out -- 00:42:24:20 -- 00:42:27:20 -- there will be this amazing shimmer of light right behind you. 00:42:27:20 -- 00:42:29:03 -- Okay -- can we move now? 00:42:29:03 -- 00:42:30:12 -- Yeah you can move -- come forward. 00:42:30:12 -- 00:42:34:21 -- I took a photo just at the base of spook hill. Just at the base of spook hill. 00:42:34:21 -- 00:42:36:05 -- Yeah. 00:42:36:05 -- 00:42:39:12 -- And it come out black -- completely black. 00:42:39:12 -- 00:42:43:06 -- Do you think you're just a really bad photographer? 00:42:43:06 -- 00:42:46:10 -- [INCOHERENT YELLING] 00:42:46:10 -- 00:42:50:07 -- Hey -- you hoons -- get away. You mongrels -- get off. 00:42:50:07 -- 00:42:52:08 -- [GIGGLE] Buggers. 00:42:56:02 -- 00:43:03:04 -- I represent the Committee for the Protection of Disabled People on Film.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 182

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:43:03:04 -- 00:43:06:05 -- Now -- that is why I'm here. 00:43:06:05 -- 00:43:12:03 -- Complaints have been voiced about improper practices involving 00:43:12:03 -- 00:43:16:21 -- the two young chaps that are here. Two disabled people. 00:43:16:21 -- 00:43:23:02 -- Now -- it is my job -- and the committee's -- to protect them -- maybe to protect 00:43:23:02 -- 00:43:29:10 -- them from themselves really. They may not like it but that's the way it's got to be. 00:43:29:10 -- 00:43:34:11 -- They’ve got to be protected. Maybe I'll have to close down the whole operation. 00:43:34:11 -- 00:43:38:09 -- But that is in the future -- we'll see what brings. 00:43:38:09 -- 00:43:43:13 -- The reason Spook Hill is special -- I guess -- and why people call it spooky is because 00:43:43:13 -- 00:43:48:18 -- it looks like a hill and it is a hill but things roll up the hill. Now I've done the 00:43:48:18 -- 00:43:53:13 -- measurements -- and there is a definite hill. From down here -- the south side up to the 00:43:53:13 -- 00:43:57:17 -- north side there is a definite gradient going upwards. 00:43:57:17 -- 00:44:02:06 -- I've done actually measurement from sea level on this side -- so I have an exact 00:44:02:06 -- 00:44:06:07 -- measurement of where we are at sea level on this side and then up the other end 00:44:06:07 -- 00:44:08:05 -- and it does go upwards. 00:44:08:05 -- 00:44:09:12 -- Wow. 00:44:09:12 -- 00:44:12:18 -- The ball should really roll back this way towards us -- because the slope is coming 00:44:12:18 -- 00:44:16:02 -- down this way -- the gradient is this way so by putting the ball down the ball 00:44:16:02 -- 00:44:19:18 -- should roll this way -- and should definitely not roll that way. 00:44:19:18 -- 00:44:22:03 -- Because things don't go up hill -- do they? 00:44:22:03 -- 00:44:23:08 -- No they don't. 00:44:23:08 -- 00:44:30:04 -- So -- we'll just go and they just continue to roll and roll. 00:44:30:04 -- 00:44:38:01 -- And they're going up hill… Wow. Which I can't say why. 00:44:38:01 -- 00:44:41:19 -- Do you think our mystery van roll up too? 00:44:41:19 -- 00:44:46:05 -- I imagine it would have to -- if the balls roll up there -- and things go up the hill -- 00:44:46:05 -- 00:44:49:21 -- then I would say yeah -- the van would go up too. 00:44:56:06 -- 00:45:00:15 -- Thankfully -- we've managed to get an emergency counselling session. 00:45:00:15 -- 00:45:06:16 -- Poor David -- his confidence -- it's just shot. 00:45:06:16 -- 00:45:10:20 -- You know -- he has missed on previous occasions -- 00:45:10:20 -- 00:45:15:23 -- maybe once -- maybe twice -- but never like this and this was an important job so...

APPENDICES -- PAGE 183

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:45:15:23 -- 00:45:20:11 -- I sort of tried to indicate to the counsellor that -- you know - - we're not talking 00:45:20:11 -- 00:45:24:14 -- about mamby pamby paintball stuff -- you know -- this is serious. 00:45:24:14 -- 00:45:28:02 -- Killing is what he does and killing is what he needs to do. 00:45:28:02 -- 00:45:31:03 -- He needs to finish this job. 00:45:31:03 -- 00:45:32:12 -- [KNOCK ON DOOR] 00:45:32:12 -- 00:45:35:07 -- Can I help with anything? 00:45:35:07 -- 00:45:37:05 -- No. No. 00:45:39:19 -- 00:45:44:05 -- I don't think I could really ever see myself having a disabled friend. 00:45:44:05 -- 00:45:48:24 -- Actually I know I couldn't. I just couldn't go out in public with a disabled person. 00:45:48:24 -- 00:45:53:11 -- There's just -- you can't even talk to them anyway -- like -- what's the point. 00:45:53:11 -- 00:45:56:18 -- Hey Wazza -- how you doing man? 00:45:56:18 -- 00:45:58:02 -- Hey boys -- how are you? 00:45:58:02 -- 00:46:01:16 -- Yeah good -- we're just in town -- thought we'd drop in. What are you up to? 00:46:01:16 -- 00:46:03:14 -- Oh mate -- just working away. 00:46:03:14 -- 00:46:07:01 -- I definitely couldn't tell my mates I was doing this show. There's just no way. 00:46:07:01 -- 00:46:12:15 -- They still think I'm doing the -- sort of -- soft porn thing. 00:46:12:15 -- 00:46:18:10 -- But yeah -- to be quite -- it's embarrassing for me -- mates -- missus -- parents -- everything. 00:46:18:10 -- 00:46:20:02 -- Who's noddy? 00:46:20:02 -- 00:46:23:20 -- Oh -- I don't know -- he just sat down. No idea. 00:46:23:20 -- 00:46:25:22 -- Alright dude -- see you later. 00:46:25:22 -- 00:46:27:24 -- Cool -- see you boys. 00:46:27:24 -- 00:46:34:23 -- I'm not desperate for friends -- I'm very selective with who my friends are. 00:46:34:23 -- 00:46:38:21 -- I don't just become friends with anyone. 00:46:38:21 -- 00:46:42:23 -- I only become friends with people that want to be friends with me. 00:46:45:07 -- 00:46:47:23 -- How many ghosts are here? 00:46:47:23 -- 00:46:50:17 -- Well I reckon there's about thirty of them -- James. 00:46:50:17 -- 00:46:52:15 -- Are they the ghosts from all the dead people? 00:46:52:15 -- 00:46:55:18 -- Well -- there's a hundred and twenty thousand people buried here -- 00:46:55:18 -- 00:46:58:14 -- so there's not that many of them haunting the place. 00:46:58:14 -- 00:47:04:03 -- I’ve seen maybe… about half a dozen times I think I've seen a ghost in the cemetery grounds. 00:47:04:03 -- 00:47:07:03 -- Oh no. 00:47:07:03 -- 00:47:11:12 -- Fuck. Pardon me -- pardon me.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 184

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:47:11:12 -- 00:47:15:13 -- What we're going to do is simple. You are going to get in the car... 00:47:15:13 -- 00:47:16:09 -- Yeah. 00:47:16:09 -- 00:47:18:17 -- ...you're going to put the car into neutral... 00:47:18:17 -- 00:47:19:13 -- Yeah. 00:47:19:13 -- 00:47:22:09 -- ...you're going to take your foot off the accelerator... 00:47:22:09 -- 00:47:23:05 -- Yeah. 00:47:23:05 -- 00:47:27:00 -- ...and then you’re going to release the hand-brake -- and when you do -- 00:47:27:00 -- 00:47:35:03 -- the forces from beyond will grab the car and begin pulling it up that hill 00:47:35:03 -- 00:47:37:24 -- You ready? Are you sure you want to do this? 00:47:37:24 -- 00:47:39:05 -- Yes. 00:47:39:05 -- 00:47:43:14 -- [PHONE RINGING] 00:47:47:20 -- 00:48:00:00 -- Hello? Ah -- well. They're filming at present. No -- no -- not funny at all. 00:48:00:00 -- 00:48:04:05 -- Hang up the phone now. Cut. Thank you. 00:48:04:05 -- 00:48:09:24 -- Alright. We need to have a meeting. 00:48:13:05 -- 00:48:15:19 -- I'm afraid I've got a little bit of bad news. 00:48:15:19 -- 00:48:17:18 -- Oh -- do you need to leave us? 00:48:17:18 -- 00:48:22:12 -- No -- it's concerning the boys on the set -- the disabled boys. 00:48:22:12 -- 00:48:23:17 -- Oh -- hmm. 00:48:23:17 -- 00:48:27:16 -- As you know -- I represent the protection of the disabled community. 00:48:27:16 -- 00:48:29:17 -- Hmm -- yes. We're very happy to have you here. 00:48:29:17 -- 00:48:34:08 -- We -- well I -- feel and they feel -- even though 00:48:34:08 -- 00:48:38:21 -- we haven't had a chance to see any of the filming that you've shot so far 00:48:38:21 -- 00:48:43:08 -- that it would be best -- in the interests of the two disabled lads 00:48:43:08 -- 00:48:46:12 -- that we withdraw them from the project. 00:48:46:12 -- 00:48:50:06 -- Oh -- ah no -- see that's going to affect my funding. 00:48:50:06 -- 00:48:54:14 -- And we can't do the shoot if we don't have the funding. 00:48:54:14 -- 00:49:00:01 -- Ah yes -- but it is our project and we are overriding you. 00:49:00:01 -- 00:49:04:23 -- Get proper actors and take Darren and James off the set. 00:49:04:23 -- 00:49:05:19 -- Oh well... 00:49:05:19 -- 00:49:07:03 -- Immediately. 00:49:07:03 -- 00:49:10:01 -- ... ah I'll have a bit of a think about it. I don't think it can happen... 00:49:10:01 -- 00:49:11:17 -- No -- no -- it's immediate. 00:49:11:17 -- 00:49:14:09 -- ...because -- I can't afford to lose my funding -- so thank you. 00:49:14:09 -- 00:49:16:15 -- Can I get two sexy chicks then?

APPENDICES -- PAGE 185

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:49:16:15 -- 00:49:20:13 -- You can get whoever you like as long as they're not from the disabled community. 00:49:20:13 -- 00:49:22:00 -- Okay -- thank you very much -- you make me happy. 00:49:22:00 -- 00:49:22:21 -- Right. 00:49:22:21 -- 00:49:26:24 -- If they not reckon it funny -- I cannot change them -- 00:49:26:24 -- 00:49:31:03 -- they have to change themselves. 00:49:31:03 -- 00:49:36:03 -- If they not reckon I'm funny on TV -- it's their fault 00:49:36:03 -- 00:49:41:16 -- because they lost -- lots and lots of life. 00:49:42:19 -- 00:49:45:08 -- Okay -- what are we going to do? 00:49:45:08 -- 00:49:46:04 -- Her? 00:49:46:04 -- 00:49:47:20 -- Too old. 00:49:47:20 -- 00:49:49:04 -- Her? 00:49:49:04 -- 00:49:51:04 -- Too black. 00:49:51:04 -- 00:49:52:14 -- Her? 00:49:52:14 -- 00:49:54:12 -- Too ginger. 00:49:54:12 -- 00:49:55:14 -- Her? 00:49:55:14 -- 00:49:59:01 -- Nope -- too old. Alright -- but too old. 00:49:59:01 -- 00:50:00:24 -- Too sexy looking. That’s it. 00:50:00:24 -- 00:50:03:19 -- I don't think this is going to work. 00:50:03:19 -- 00:50:04:14 -- Alright. 00:50:04:14 -- 00:50:06:04 -- We need to do something else. 00:50:06:04 -- 00:50:08:10 -- I'll leave it up to you -- hey? 00:50:10:09 -- 00:50:12:17 -- We need to get serious about this. 00:50:12:17 -- 00:50:15:19 -- That's two now -- yeah -- we've got two? 00:50:15:19 -- 00:50:18:10 -- Yeah -- two -- yeah. Marvellous -- she's good. 00:50:18:10 -- 00:50:20:05 -- Who's paying for this? 00:50:20:05 -- 00:50:22:13 -- I'll get back to you. [GIGGLE] 00:50:24:21 -- 00:50:29:09 -- I'm going -- just while everyone's asleep. 00:50:29:09 -- 00:50:34:08 -- The funding's falling through so -- I've had enough. See you.

MYSTERY #5: RIVER MONSTER

00:51:10:12 -- 00:51:14:11 -- Welcome! To the Mystery Down Under Tour. 00:51:14:11 -- 00:51:15:20 -- I'm Cindy. 00:51:15:20 -- 00:51:18:04 -- And I'm Stacey and today we are... 00:51:18:04 -- 00:51:19:13 -- [GIGGLE] 00:51:19:13 -- 00:51:22:06 -- We're solving mysteries. [LAUGHTER] 00:51:22:06 -- 00:51:24:05 -- And what are we solving the mystery of? 00:51:24:05 -- 00:51:28:06 -- A monster -- a scary monster -- just a behind it here I think. 00:51:28:06 -- 00:51:31:01 -- And we are excited. 00:51:31:01 -- 00:51:34:02 -- Oh very excited -- yeah. 00:51:34:02 -- 00:51:40:01 -- Cut. Very good. Good work. Happy with that. 00:51:40:01 -- 00:51:43:03 -- These girls are good looking

APPENDICES -- PAGE 186

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:51:43:03 -- 00:51:48:11 -- but they’ll never solve a mystery like me and Darren… these girls don't know how to solve a mystery like me ad Darren do. 00:51:48:11 -- 00:51:54:21 -- They're only young -- beautiful girls. They're young -- they’re not clever like us. 00:51:54:21 -- 00:52:01:20 -- They're beautiful -- they're in their bikinis. So what? 00:52:01:20 -- 00:52:04:11 -- So -- when are we getting paid? 00:52:04:11 -- 00:52:06:09 -- Yeah -- we haven't been paid yet. 00:52:06:09 -- 00:52:09:11 -- Okay -- who's paying? Girlie -- where are you? 00:52:09:11 -- 00:52:11:17 -- Malcolm -- it's Simone. 00:52:11:17 -- 00:52:12:20 -- Oh -- right. 00:52:12:20 -- 00:52:16:02 -- Do you take credit card? 00:52:16:02 -- 00:52:18:12 -- Happy. 00:52:18:12 -- 00:52:23:15 -- I got about half way home and I was thinking about it in the car and I realized: 00:52:23:15 -- 00:52:28:18 -- No -- I'm a producer -- this is what I do -- I have to support my director. 00:52:28:18 -- 00:52:33:21 -- Even if it means I have to use my own money -- my own credit cards. 00:52:33:21 -- 00:52:38:05 -- But I'm here. I'm here to support Malcolm and his vision. 00:52:38:05 -- 00:52:41:13 -- I might -- you know -- help him a bit -- shape things -- 00:52:41:13 -- 00:52:44:10 -- but we're going to make this the best show that we possibly can. 00:52:44:10 -- 00:52:46:24 -- It's just -- see -- I was thinking that perhaps -- 00:52:46:24 -- 00:52:50:10 -- what your brother Gordy thinks is a love story -- 00:52:50:10 -- 00:52:54:15 -- might not be what your mum thinks is a love story -- 00:52:54:15 -- 00:52:59:04 -- and we might try and write it the way your mum might like it. 00:52:59:04 -- 00:53:00:05 -- Yeah? Yeah. 00:53:01:04 -- 00:53:04:04 -- So I'll leave them with you -- you have a bit of a read. 00:53:04:04 -- 00:53:05:20 -- You'll come back to me later? 00:53:05:20 -- 00:53:07:04 -- Yeah -- later. 00:53:07:04 -- 00:53:08:12 -- I want you back. 00:53:12:23 -- 00:53:17:05 -- I lost mum five years ago. She went in 2005. 00:53:17:05 -- 00:53:20:07 -- Best mum in the world -- best friend you ever have. 00:53:20:07 -- 00:53:24:20 -- Best friend you ever have in your pocket. 00:53:24:20 -- 00:53:29:09 -- She was a good mum -- I'm sad because she's gone -- she left. 00:53:31:06 -- 00:53:35:05 -- That's my mum. 00:53:35:05 -- 00:53:40:09 -- She loves love stories -- she loves drama -- and loves mysteries. 00:53:40:09 -- 00:53:44:10 -- I never got over it -- but she's gone. 00:53:49:17 -- 00:53:57:03 -- Very interesting. Oh yeah. That's good. 00:53:58:04 -- 00:54:03:08 -- Sexual tensions -- oooh. I like that one. 00:54:03:08 -- 00:54:04:20 -- What do you want?

APPENDICES -- PAGE 187

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:54:04:20 -- 00:54:06:10 -- Here mate -- I've got something for you. 00:54:06:10 -- 00:54:07:01 -- Yeah? 00:54:07:01 -- 00:54:09:13 -- Perfect -- I've been wanting to use this for ages. 00:54:09:13 -- 00:54:12:13 -- Look at that -- this is going to be awesome. 00:54:12:13 -- 00:54:13:18 -- But this movie is... 00:54:13:18 -- 00:54:15:16 -- The girls are going to love it. 00:54:15:16 -- 00:54:20:06 -- The movie's all about love -- not porno -- no rough stuff. 00:54:20:06 -- 00:54:21:20 -- Yeah -- love -- yeah [GIGGLE] 00:54:21:20 -- 00:54:24:23 -- Romance -- being in love. 00:54:24:23 -- 00:54:27:01 -- So you don't want to use this? 00:54:27:01 -- 00:54:31:03 -- No -- you put that away -- put it under your bed or under your pillow 00:54:31:03 -- 00:54:32:18 -- because we don't want to do that. 00:54:32:18 -- 00:54:34:08 -- Alright. 00:54:34:08 -- 00:54:36:20 -- It's going well -- just -- see you later. 00:54:36:20 -- 00:54:38:10 -- No worries. 00:54:38:10 -- 00:54:41:11 -- Well -- we could go swimming in the river. We are dressed for the occasion. 00:54:41:11 -- 00:54:42:08 -- Cut. 00:54:42:08 -- 00:54:44:23 -- You girls are getting it wrong -- I don't want it this way that you're doing. 00:54:44:23 -- 00:54:46:13 -- How are we getting it wrong? 00:54:46:13 -- 00:54:48:23 -- What do you mean we're getting it wrong? I don't understand. 00:54:48:23 -- 00:54:50:15 -- Love and romance. 00:54:50:15 -- 00:54:53:01 -- But what do you mean romance? We don't know about romance. 00:54:53:01 -- 00:54:55:10 -- Well -- what you're doing I don't like it. 00:54:55:10 -- 00:54:57:15 -- Okay -- put your heads together and think about it. 00:54:57:15 -- 00:55:00:03 -- Put my head together -- we didn't even know -- this was never in the brief. 00:55:00:03 -- 00:55:02:14 -- No I can't work like this. Sorry -- we've had enough. 00:55:02:14 -- 00:55:05:02 -- Don't walk off -- come back here you pretty girls. 00:55:10:03 -- 00:55:11:18 -- See you later. 00:55:11:18 -- 00:55:14:05 -- What's going on -- are the girls coming back? 00:55:14:05 -- 00:55:17:07 -- Oh yes it was just a disaster -- a shambles -- a farce. 00:55:17:07 -- 00:55:24:06 -- Malcolm's incompetence -- what he's done will now reflect upon the rest of the 00:55:24:06 -- 00:55:31:20 -- disabled community. So I've -- well my committee and I -- and myself -- have decided 00:55:31:20 -- 00:55:37:11 -- that we can only take the one action that's left open to us. 00:55:37:11 -- 00:55:39:11 -- Rolling. 00:55:39:11 -- 00:55:41:20 -- Action! 00:55:41:20 -- 00:55:46:04 -- Cyril and his committee have decided that Malcolm is sacked.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 188

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:55:46:04 -- 00:55:50:07 -- He's not directing anymore. Cyrils' going to take over that role. 00:55:50:07 -- 00:55:55:02 -- But -- you know -- it's okay. Malcolm's going to stay around on set. 00:55:55:02 -- 00:55:59:12 -- I've made sure of that. He's going to do a bit of production assisting 00:55:59:12 -- 00:56:03:13 -- Maybe some of the catering -- gofering -- that sort of thing 00:56:03:13 -- 00:56:08:10 -- So -- he's still here -- he'll still be helping to realise the vision -- which is very important. 00:56:08:10 -- 00:56:13:18 -- The good thing is that Cyril is disabled -- he's in a wheelchair -- 00:56:13:18 -- 00:56:18:09 -- so from my point of view -- for marketing -- publicity -- it's great. 00:56:18:09 -- 00:56:22:01 -- Visually -- it's going to be a really good disability for us I think. 00:56:22:01 -- 00:56:24:05 -- So -- you know -- hard day -- 00:56:24:05 -- 00:56:27:19 -- but -- we've pushed through and I think it's going to be okay. 00:56:31:03 -- 00:56:34:08 -- I don't want to do an external mimicking -- 00:56:34:08 -- 00:56:37:00 -- I want to try and find the essence of the person. 00:56:37:00 -- 00:56:40:05 -- I think spending time together -- researching -- 00:56:40:05 -- 00:56:44:14 -- and then working from the inside out is much more truthful - - 00:56:44:14 -- 00:56:46:17 -- and results in something much better. 00:56:46:17 -- 00:56:50:12 -- I thought maybe we could hang out a little bit together. What do you think? 00:56:50:12 -- 00:56:51:12 -- No. 00:56:51:12 -- 00:56:52:15 -- Oh. 00:56:52:15 -- 00:56:58:23 -- Well I tend to find the suit -- the clothes -- the feeling -- the look -- 00:56:58:23 -- 00:57:05:03 -- and I put the clothes on and I get the feeling and I understand the character -- 00:57:05:03 -- 00:57:14:22 -- I understand the way he holds his face -- the tone of the voice and I put the suit on. 00:57:14:22 -- 00:57:17:12 -- Action! 00:57:17:12 -- 00:57:23:04 -- Welcome to the Mystery Down Under Tour. 00:57:23:04 -- 00:57:28:05 -- I am Darren and this is James. 00:57:28:05 -- 00:57:34:14 -- We're going to solve mysteries and change people lives. 00:57:34:14 -- 00:57:36:12 -- Cut. 00:57:41:00 -- 00:57:44:14 -- I think they're taking the Mickey out of us. 00:57:44:14 -- 00:57:49:11 -- They're not funny -- James not like that at all. 00:57:49:11 -- 00:57:55:06 -- He do not see him -- he do not live with him. I do. I live with James -- 00:57:55:06 -- 00:58:00:21 -- and James do not act like that at home.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 189

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

00:58:00:21 -- 00:58:08:18 -- And how dare he do that to James and he do not see him at all. 00:58:08:18 -- 00:58:13:03 -- He's gone too far. I reckon. 00:58:13:03 -- 00:58:17:02 -- It's not right -- fair… for an actor to play me -- because I can play myself. 00:58:17:02 -- 00:58:21:02 -- If they want someone to play me -- they can just take me because I'm right here. 00:58:21:02 -- 00:58:24:06 -- I can play that bit -- and I'm a good person -- yep. 00:58:26:15 -- 00:58:33:11 -- The actors and I have decided that -- so they can focus more on their roles 00:58:33:11 -- 00:58:38:04 -- that it would be a lot easier if you three weren't on the set. 00:58:38:04 -- 00:58:44:09 -- So -- here's three tickets to go tenpin bowling. Enjoy. 00:58:46:20 -- 00:58:50:00 -- Thanks for nothing. 00:58:58:02 -- 00:59:01:16 -- Malcolm's gone -- which I'm pretty happy about -- 00:59:01:16 -- 00:59:05:05 -- because -- well -- no-one told me Malcolm was disabled -- basically -- 00:59:05:05 -- 00:59:12:09 -- and I'm quite annoyed about it. I actually feel quite deceived. 00:59:12:09 -- 00:59:17:21 -- I mean -- how was I to know? I almost became mates with the guy. 00:59:28:02 -- 00:59:33:16 -- Bloody hell -- I've lost my job. Not happy -- not happy one bit. 00:59:33:16 -- 00:59:35:15 -- [CAR ENGINE] 00:59:35:15 -- 00:59:40:01 -- Hey -- wait for me -- come back. 00:59:40:01 -- 00:59:44:11 -- Hey boys -- can I get a lift? Hey boys? Hey! 00:59:44:11 -- 00:59:46:10 -- [CAR ENGINE] 00:59:46:10 -- 00:59:50:00 -- Yeah -- go on you mongrels. Get. 00:59:52:00 -- 00:59:58:02 -- It's really devastating to lose Malcolm. You know -- it's his vision. 00:59:58:02 -- 01:00:01:12 -- Cyril sent him off bowling but I'm going to stay. 01:00:01:12 -- 01:00:06:11 -- I'm going to make sure that Malcolm's vision comes to fruition. 01:00:06:11 -- 01:00:09:12 -- So I'm here. I'm pushing forward. 01:00:13:09 -- 01:00:17:02 -- Action! 01:00:17:02 -- 01:00:20:02 -- [GUN SHOTS] 01:00:20:02 -- 01:00:23:03 -- Bloody hell. [SCREAMS] 01:00:23:03 -- 01:00:27:11 -- We're going to die -- we're going to die! 01:00:27:11 -- 01:00:34:11 -- Killing is what he does -- and killing is what he needs to do. 01:00:40:03 -- 01:00:43:04 -- [GUN SHOTS] 01:00:45:18 -- 01:00:49:24 -- Move on. Get another job. Find somewhere else to go. 01:00:49:24 -- 01:00:58:07 -- I’ll open up a shop. Hotrod shop. Do hotrods. I like motorcars. 01:00:58:07 -- 01:01:03:23 -- Hotrods. Nice hotrod cars at the front. Porn down the back. 01:01:03:23 -- 01:01:09:11 -- I can't run a bloody chook raffle. 01:01:12:04 -- 01:01:16:21 -- I haven't told Gordy nothing about my sacking. 01:01:16:21 -- 01:01:21:04 -- The shit will hit the fan when he comes home.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 190

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

01:01:21:04 -- 01:01:24:18 -- Malcolm? 01:01:24:18 -- 01:01:27:18 -- I'm crapped off -- I lost my job. 01:01:27:18 -- 01:01:32:16 -- [SNAP OF FINGERS] I want to get back in but I got the sack -- finished. 01:01:32:16 -- 01:01:35:04 -- You home Malcolm? 01:01:35:04 -- 01:01:39:20 -- Gordon doesn't know I'm finished yet -- that I got the sack. 01:01:39:20 -- 01:01:42:24 -- When he comes home I'll just have to tell him. 01:01:42:24 -- 01:01:47:04 -- He doesn't know nothing about James and Darren. 01:01:47:04 -- 01:01:51:19 -- You can't do nothing about it -- it's water under the creek. 01:01:57:09 -- 01:02:00:06 -- What are you watching? 01:02:00:06 -- 01:02:04:19 -- [LAUGHTER] Hey brother. Your movie. 01:02:04:19 -- 01:02:07:20 -- You like it? 01:02:07:20 -- 01:02:10:21 -- Yeah -- it's good. 01:02:12:16 -- 01:02:15:05 -- [LAUGHTER] 01:02:15:05 -- 01:02:16:17 -- Yeah -- it's good Gordy. 01:02:16:17 -- 01:02:19:18 -- Yeah -- that's good -- yeah. 01:02:19:18 -- 01:02:21:06 -- Useless pricks -- hey? 01:02:21:06 -- 01:02:24:07 -- Yeah -- they are. Knuckle heads -- hey? 01:02:24:07 -- 01:02:26:09 -- Knuckle heads. 01:02:26:09 -- 01:02:29:23 -- He's my brother. My loving brother -- that's it. 01:02:29:23 -- 01:02:35:13 -- Number one is my brother and myself. 01:02:35:13 -- 01:02:41:00 -- Everyone can A - off. 01:02:41:00 -- 01:02:48:02 -- We didn't find anything. I not really care if I'm famous or not. 01:02:48:02 -- 01:02:51:14 -- What is famous? Fame is not everything. 01:02:51:14 -- 01:02:58:03 -- I'm still going to explore mysteries and find things. 01:02:58:03 -- 01:03:05:05 -- Well -- that is my passion -- to look for something -- 01:03:05:05 -- 01:03:13:03 -- go somewhere where men never gone before 01:03:13:03 -- 01:03:18:10 -- and if I cannot find anything -- I go back to my own normal life. 01:03:18:10 -- 01:03:21:24 -- I'm actually finished with mysteries. 01:03:21:24 -- 01:03:26:17 -- Feel like I can just move on with my life and do some new stuff. 01:03:26:17 -- 01:03:33:11 -- Yeah -- probably... I'll think of something. I’ll think of something. 01:03:33:11 -- 01:03:36:12 -- Make my own comedy show. 01:03:36:12 -- 01:03:41:15 -- I'd probably tell jokes to a live audience about things that have happened. 01:03:41:15 -- 01:03:45:22 -- Like -- why did the chicken cross the road? 01:03:45:22 -- 01:03:51:20 -- And -- why did the rocket take off? And -- why did the oven explode? 01:03:51:20 -- 01:03:56:14 -- I'll tell all these jokes about things. Fill the room with laughing gas -- 01:03:56:14 -- 01:04:00:21 -- make everyone in the room laugh from me telling the jokes.

APPENDICES -- PAGE 191

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

01:04:00:21 -- 01:04:06:11 -- The girls -- it would be okay if I don't find a girlfriend. It'll be okay. 01:04:13:06 -- 01:04:21:08 -- Because I say -- because… I don't really need a girlfriend. I can just cope being single. 01:04:21:08 -- 01:04:25:15 -- I'd probably just cope if I stay single -- Yeah. 01:04:25:15 -- 01:04:29:21 -- Because you've got to buy stuff for them all the time -- 01:04:29:21 -- 01:04:33:24 -- and you've got to be around them all the time -- yeah. 01:04:33:24 -- 01:04:39:03 -- And they probably take money from you all the time -- 01:04:39:03 -- 01:04:43:18 -- and they steal stuff from you -- yeah. 01:04:43:18 -- 01:04:46:09 -- I don't need one. 01:04:46:09 -- 01:04:52:05 -- I miss my mum -- the whole world. 01:04:52:05 -- 01:04:57:07 -- I miss Darren and James that much. 01:04:57:07 -- 01:05:00:21 -- [LAUGHTER] 01:05:00:21 -- 01:05:04:09 -- They're a pain in the arse. 01:05:04:09 -- 01:05:08:11 -- They are… make me frustrated -- make me upset. 01:05:08:11 -- 01:05:11:08 -- But I still miss them. 01:05:11:08 -- 01:05:15:18 -- TV REPORTER - Two Australian actors are missing tonight in deep forest north of 01:05:15:18 -- 01:05:20:07 -- - the Hawkesbury River. Former A-list celebrities Barry S Gibson and Clifford 01:05:20:07 -- 01:05:22:14 -- - Phelps failed to return from filming a TV series 01:05:22:14 -- 01:05:24:21 -- - in remote bush territory on Thursday. 01:05:24:21 -- 01:05:26:16 -- Oh -- weird. 01:05:26:16 -- 01:05:30:03 -- - Disability activist Cyril Turner and three members of his film crew are also missing. 01:05:31:19 -- 01:05:34:20 -- [PHONE RINGING] 01:05:37:06 -- 01:05:40:07 -- Hello -- Darren. What do you want? 01:05:40:07 -- 01:05:42:02 -- Are you watching the news? 01:05:42:02 -- 01:05:44:01 -- Yeah I'm watching the bloody news -- yeah. 01:05:44:01 -- 01:05:45:16 -- They're missing! 01:05:45:16 -- 01:05:46:09 -- Okay. 01:05:46:09 -- 01:05:49:10 -- -SES volunteers and local police stepped up the search this morning -- 01:05:49:10 -- 01:05:52:24 -- - but family -- friends -- and the actors’ agents fear the worst. 01:05:52:24 -- 01:05:56:00 -- Looks like another bloody mystery to solve -- hey?

MYSTERY #6: LOST FILM CREW

01:06:03:18 -- 01:06:06:16 -- Malcolm -- can we go to a strip club this time? 01:06:06:16 -- 01:06:09:11 -- Bloody oath we can -- we'll go now. 01:06:09:11 -- 01:06:10:11 -- Come on -- let's go. 01:06:24:13 -- 01:06:27:14 -- Yay we got the yowie! 01:06:31:23 -- 01:06:34:24 -- [LAUGHTER] 01:06:36:06 -- 01:06:39:07 -- [SCREAMING]

APPENDICES -- PAGE 192

DOWN UNDER MYSTERY TOUR – THE MOVIE FULL TIMECODED TRANSCRIPT

Hrs:Min:Secs:Frames (start) -- H:M:S:F (end) -- Dialogue/narration [SOUND]

01:06:56:22 -- 01:06:59:11 -- I am excited too. 01:07:03:00 -- 01:07:06:01 -- Welcome! To the Mystery Down Under Tour. 01:07:06:01 -- 01:07:09:02 -- Two Australian actors are missing tonight in deep forest. 01:07:09:02 -- 01:07:12:03 -- Just hung up -- they're coming tomorrow. 01:07:12:03 -- 01:07:17:10 -- [LAUGHTER] 01:07:17:10 -- 01:07:21:19 -- You're very good looking -- you're lucky I'm not twenty years younger. 01:07:22:04 -- 01:07:27:08 -- Husband bites wife's thing. What'd he bite? 01:07:28:22 -- 01:07:34:11 -- Fortunately -- David is wearing his good… [LAUGHTER] 01:07:39:06 -- 01:07:44:10 -- Cut. Cut. Cut. 01:07:44:10 -- 01:07:47:23 -- Sweet as -- the job is done -- cut. 01:09:47:03 -- 01:09:50:22 -- James and Darren are two special boys. 01:09:50:22 -- 01:09:53:23 -- I love Darren. 01:09:55:20 -- 01:09:59:06 -- [GIGGLE] Get fucked. Cut. 01:09:59:06 -- 01:10:02:07 -- [LAUGHTER]

END

APPENDICES -- PAGE 193

R EFERENCES

Albertson, B. and A. Lawrence. (2009). ‘After the credits roll: the long-term effects of educational television on public knowledge and attitudes.’ American Politics Research, March 2009 37(2): 275-300.

Albrecht, G. L. (1999). ‘Disability humor: what's in a joke?’ Body & Society 5(4): 67-74.

Allen, R. L. And S. Hatchett. (1986). ‘The media and social reality effects: self and system orientations of blacks.’ Communication Research 13: 97-123.

Althusser, L. (1971). ‘Ideology and Ideological State.’ Aparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays. New York, Monthly Press.

Anderson, D. (1997). ‘A bunch of attitude.’ Sydney Morning Herald. January 6. Sydney: 9 (The Guide).

Aristotle (1974). Aristotle's Politics and Poetics. New York, Viking.

Arp, T. R. and G. Johnson (2009). Story and structure. Boston, MA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Bank-Mikkelson, N. (1976). ‘Misconceptions of the principle of normalisation.’ IASSMD Conference. Washington D.C.

Barnes, C. (1992). Disability imagery and the media: an exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. Krumlin, Halifax.

Barnes, C. and G. Mercer (2003). Disability. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.

Barnes, C., G. Mercer, et al. (1999). Exploring disability: a sociological introduction. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.

Barthes, R. (1996). ‘The death of the author.’ Theories of authorship. J. Caughie. London and New York, Routledge.

Barton, L. (2005). ‘Emancipatory research and disabled people: some observations and questions.’ Educational Review 57(3): 317-327.

Beatson, P. (1996). ‘The future of disability television.’ New Zealand Journal of Disability Studies 3(1): 86-97.

195

R EFERENCES

Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers.

Berry, P. (2007). ‘BIFF empowers disabled debate.’ City News. August 2. Brisbane: 7

Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity. Massachussetts, Oxford and Victoria, Blackwell Publishing.

Bogdan, R. and D. Biklen. (1977). ‘Handicapism.’ Social Policy 15: 537-550.

Bogdan, R., D. Biklen, et al. (1982). ‘The disabled: media's monsters.’ Social Policy 13: 32-35.

Booth, T. (1996). ‘Sounds of still voices: issues in the use of narrative methods with people who have learning difficulties.’ Disability and Society. L. Barton. New York, Longman.

Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press.

Bordwell, D. and K. Thompson (1997). Film art: an introduction. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Box Office Mojo. (2008). ‘'The Black Balloon' at Box Office Mojo.’ Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blackballoon.htm.

Byrd, E. K. and R. B. Pipes (1981). ‘Feature films and disability.’ Journal of Rehabilitation 47: 51-53.

Byrd, E. K. and T. R. Elliott (1985). ‘Feature films and disability: a descriptive study.’ Rehabilitation Psychology 30 (1): 47-51.

Byrd, E. K. and T. R. Elliott (1988). ‘Disability in full-length films: frequency and quality of films over an 11 year span.’ International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 11: 143-148.

Bywater, T. and T. Sobchack. (1989). Introduction to film criticisms: major critical approaches to narrative film. New York, Longman.

Campbell, M. (2007). ‘The mocking documentary and the ethics of irony.’ Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education 11(1): 53-62.

196

R EFERENCES

Candlin, F. (2000). ‘A proper anxiety: practice-based PhDs and academic unease.’ Working papers in Art and Design 1. Retrieved 12 June, 2009, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/reserach/papers/wpades/vol1/candlin.html

Carter-Long, L. (2010). ‘DisTHIS! Film Series.’ Retrieved 12 January 2010, from http://disthis.org/FTheDisabled.htm.

Castles, P. (2007). ‘Fear at QUT.’ ABC Online Retrieved 15 June, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/items/200706/s1952125.htm.

Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, Cornell UP.

Cosh, C. (2001). A guilty liberal pleasure. Newsmagazine. Canada. 28: 5.

Cottle, S. (1997). Television and Ethnic Minorities: producers’ perspectives: a study of the BBC, Independent and Cable TV producers. Aldershot, Avebury.

Cottle, S. (1998). ‘Making ethnic minority programmes inside the BBC: professional pragmatics and cultural containment.’ Media, Culture and Society 20(2): 295-317.

Cronin, T. (2009). ‘Media effects and the subjectification of film regulation.’ Velvet Light Trap, Spring 2009, 63: 3-21.

Cumberbatch, G. and R. Negrine (1992). Images of disability on television. London, Routledge.

Curr, I. (2007). ‘Philistines no longer at the gates: academics, Hookham and MacLennan, threatened with the sack!’ The Bush Telegraph. Retrieved 1 May, 2007, from http://bushtelegraph.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/philistines-no-longer- at-the-gates-of-queensland-university-of-technology/#comment-1252.

Dahl, M. (1993). ‘The role of the media in promoting images of disability: disability as metaphor, the evil crip.’ Canadian Journal of Communication 18(1): 7.

Darke, P. (1997). ‘Everywhere: disability on film.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon. London, British Film Institute.

197

R EFERENCES

Darke, P. (1998). ‘Understanding cinematic representations of disability.’ The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. T. Shakespeare. London and New York, Cassell.

Darke, P. (1999). The cinematic construction of physical disability as identified through the application of the social model of disability to six indicative films made since 1970. Film Studies, University of Warwick. PhD.

Davies, C. (1997). ‘Window on the world - almost!’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Davies, C. (1997a). ‘Disability for sale 2: the writer and the producer.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Davies, C. A. and R. Jenkins. (1997). ‘'She has different fits to me': how people with learning difficulties see themselves.’ Disability and Society 12(1): 95-109.

Declegie, A. (2008). ‘Balloon hits the heights.’ Sunday Times. 7 December. Perth: 14.

Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. (2000). ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research.’ The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

Dobson, M. and S. Wells, Eds. (2001). The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. London, Oxford University Press.

Douglass, J. S. and G. P. Harnden. (1996). The art of technique: an aesthetic approach to film and video production. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Downes, L. (2005). ‘The Radical Moral Vision of the 'Dumb and Dumber' Guys.’ New York Times. December 28. New York: A.18.

Dowse, L. (2009). ‘'It's like being in a zoo': researching with people with intellectual disability.’ Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 9(3): 141-153.

Druckman, J. and K. Nelson. (2003). ‘Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence’. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4): 729-745.

Duncan, K., G. Goggin et al. (2005). ‘‘Don't talk about me... like I'm not here’: disability in Australian national cinema.’ Metro 146/7: 152-59.

198

R EFERENCES

Eichinger, J., T. L. Rizzo et al. (1992). ‘Attributes related to attitudes towards people with disabilities.’ International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 15: 53- 56.

Elder, R. K. (2005). ‘'Ringer' endorsements don't patch its problems.’ Knight Ridder Tribune. December 23. Business News: 1.

Ellis, K. (2007). ‘Disability as visual shorthand: theme and style in Australian cinema in the 1990s.’ Metro Magazine 152: 135-139.

Enright, D. (2002). The wicked wit of William Shakespeare. London, Michael O'Mara Books Ltd.

Epstein, A. (2002). Crafty screenwriting. New York, Owl Books.

Erickson, G. (2007). ‘DVD Savant: Goodbye CP.’ Retrieved 3 May, 2010, from http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2300cp.html.

Erikson, W. and D. Wolfe (1985). Images of blind and visually impaired people in the movies, 1913-1985: an annotated filmography with notes. New York, American Foundation for the Blind.

Field, S. (1984). The screenwriter's workbook. New York, Dell Publishing.

Field, S. (2003). The definitive guide to screenwriting. London, Ebury Press.

Fleming, M. and R. Manvell (1985). Images of madness: the portrayal of insanity in the feature film. Rutherford, NJ, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Foucault, M. (1996). ‘What is an author?’ Theories of authorship. J. Caughie. London and New York, Routledge.

Freud, S. (1971). ‘Jokes and the comic.’ Comedy: a critical anthology. R. W. Corrigan and G. Loney. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

Frye, N. (1968). Anatomy of criticism. New York, Atheneum.

Fulton, D. S. (2004). ‘Comic views and metaphysical dilemmas: shattering cultural images through self-definition and representation by black comediennes.’ Journal of American Folklore 117(463): 81.

Fyson, R. (2009). ‘Independence and learning disabilities: why we must also recognise vulnerability.’ The Journal of Adult Protection 11(3): 18-24.

199

R EFERENCES

Gauntlett, D. (1998). ‘Ten things wrong with the effects model.’ Approaches to audiences: a reader. R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath and O. Linne. London, Arnold.

Gerbner, G. (1969). ‘Toward ‘cultural indicators’: the analysis of mass mediated message systems.’ AV Communication Review 17: 137-148.

Gill, C. (1991). ‘Did you hear the one about...?’ Mainstream 21 May.

Gill, C. J. (1994). ‘Questioning continuum.’ The Ragged Edge. B. Shaw. Louisville, KY, Avocado Press.

Goggin, G. (2009). ‘Disability, media, and the politics of vulnerability.’ Asia Pacific Media Educator June 2008/July 2009 (19).

Goggin, G. and C. Newell. (2003). ‘Imagining diversity: disability and Australian film.’ Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) Designing Communication for Diversity conference. Queensland University of Technology, 9-11 July 2003. URL: http://www.bgsb.qut.edu.au/conferences/ANZCA03/Proceedings/default.htm

Gray, C. (1996). ‘Inquiry through practice: developing appropriate research strategies.’ Retrieved 12 January, 2005, from http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/criad/cgpapers/ngnm/ngnm.htm.

Greenhalgh, D. (1994). ‘Films involving disabilities.’ Retrieved 16 August, 2009, from www.disabilityfilms.co.uk.

Griffith, C. (2007). ‘Overturn this Penalty!’ Courier-Mail Online Retrieved 11 June, 2007, from http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/vitalinterest/index.php/couriermail/comment s/academic_suspensions_a_disgrace/

Grisso, T. and P. S. Appelbaum. (1991). ‘Mentally ill and non mentally-ill patients' abilities to understand informed consent disclosures for medication.’ Law and Human Behaviour 15: 377-388.

Grisso, T. and P. S. Appelbaum. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: a guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York, Oxford University Press.

Hahn, H. (1988). ‘Can disability be beautiful?’ Social Policy 18: 26-32.

200

R EFERENCES

Hall, S (1988). 'New Ethnicities’. Black Film, British Cinema. K. Mercer. London, British Film Institute.

Hall, S. (1994). ‘Some 'politically correct' pathways through PC’. The war of the words: the poltical correctness debate. S. Dunant. London, Virago.

Harnett, A. (2000). ‘Escaping the 'Evil Avenger' and the 'Supercrip': images of disability in popular television.’ Irish Communications Review 8: 21-29.

Haseman, B. C. (2006). ‘A manifesto for performative research.’ Media International Australia incorporating Culture and policy. February (118): 99-106. Retrieved 10 June, 2008, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3999/1/3999_1.pdf

Hauge, M. (1988). Writing screenplays that sell. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Hickson, L. and I. Khemka. (1999). ‘Decision making and mental retardation.’ International Review of Research in Mental Retardation 22: 227-265.

Hirst, M. (2007). ‘QUT sacks academics – update.’ Ethical Martini. Retrieved 27 September, 2007, from http://ethicalmartini.blogspot.com/.

Hookham, J. (2007). ‘Ethical questions re laughing at the disabled.’ Workplace mobbing Retrieved 26 June, 2007, from http://www.workplacemobbing.com/board/board_topic/4683976/280396.htm.

Hookham, J. (2007a). ‘Fwd: academic freedom’. Visible Evidence. 4 May. Retrieved 5 May, 2007, from listserv email distribution at: visibleevidence- [email protected].

Horton, A. (1991). ‘Introduction’. Comedy/Cinema/Theory. A. Horton. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Horton, A. (2000). Laughing out loud: writing the comedy-centered screenplay. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Howitt, D. (1982). The mass media and social problems. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Humphries, V. (2007). ‘Query re: a film initially titled ‘Laughing at the Disabled’’. Disability Forum. Retrieved 12 May, 2007, from http://www.disabilityforum.org.au/forums.php?m=posts&q=274&n=last%20- %2023k%20.

Hunter, L. (1993). Screenwriting 434. New York, The Berkley Publishing Group.

201

R EFERENCES

Hutton, C. (2007). ‘Unlikely hero’. Style Magazine (Northside). December. Quest Newspapers, Brisbane: 29.

Hyler, S. E. (1988). ‘DSM-III at the cinema: madness in the movies.’ Comprehensive Psychiatry 29: 195-206.

IMDb. (1990). ‘'Struck by Lightning' on Internet Movie Database.’ Retrieved 2 January, 2009, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100709/usercomments.

IMDb. (2008). ‘'The Black Balloon' on Internet Movie Database.’ Retrieved 3 January, 2009, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0865297/awards.

Jaeger, P. T. and C. A. Bowman. (2005). Understanding disability: inclusion, access, diversity and civil rights. London, Praeger.

Jeffrey, T., Ed. (1995). Film business: a handbook for producers. North Ryde, Australian Film Television and Radio School Publications.

Kimpton-Nye, A. (1997). ‘Gump and Co.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon. London, British Film Institute.

Klobas, L. E. (1988). Disability drama in television and film. London, McFarland and Co.

Lagan, B. (2007). ‘College backs student over film mocking the disabled.’ Retrieved 12 June, 2007, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1917877.ece.

Larsen, R. and B. A. Haller. (2002). ‘The case of Freaks: public perception of real disability.’ Journal of Popular Film and Television 29(4): 164-172.

Lavender-Smith, J. (2009). ‘Irony Inc.: parodic-doc horror and ‘The Blair Witch Project’’. Cultural borrowings: appropriation, reworking, transformation. Scope: An Online Journal of Film and Television Studies. I. Smith. Retrieved 10 August, 2010, from http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/proof/Smith

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: knowledge and identity. New York, New York University Press.

Lipkin, S. N., D. Paget et al. (2006). ‘Docudrama and mock-documentary: Defining terms, proposing canons.’ Docufictions: essays on the intersection of documentary and fictional filmmaking. G. D. Rhodes and J. P. Springer. Jefferson, North Carolina and London, McFarland and Company.

202

R EFERENCES

Littlewood, J. and M. Pickering. (1998). ‘Heard of the one about the white middle-class heterosexual father-in-law?’ Because I tell a joke or two: comedy, politics, and social difference. S. Wagg. London; New York, Routledge: 291-311.

Livingston, T. (2007). ‘Academics stunned at ban’. The Courier-Mail. 11 June. Brisbane: 1. Readers’ comments retrieved 12 June, 2007, from http://www.couriermail.com.au/comments/0,23836,21882944-3102,00.html

Longmore, P. K. (1987). ‘Screening stereotypes: images of disabled people in television and motion pictures’. Images of the disabled: disabling images. A. J. Gartner, T. New York, Praeger.

Lund, R. (2005). ‘Laughing at cripples; ridicule, deformity and the argument from design.’ Eighteenth-Century Studies 39(1): 91-114.

Lynch, Y. (1997). ‘All the world's a stage’. Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

MacLennan, G. (2007). ‘Letter from Gary MacLennan.’ Student myspace page: ‘Save Our Lecturers.’ Retrieved 11 June, 2007, from http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=16893169 6&MyToken=216ad11e-710f-487a-aed9-13f73dd012caML.

MacLennan, G. and J. Hookham. (2007). ‘Philistines of relativism at the gates’. The Australian. 11 April. Brisbane: 33.

MacLennan, G. and J. Hookham. (2007a). ‘Philistines of relativism at the gates: Comments’. Online Opinion. Retrieved 20 June 2007 from http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5730

Maltby, R. (2003). Hollywood cinema. Malden, MA, Blackwell.

Mamet, D. (1991). On directing film. New York, Viking Penguin.

Mantle, M. (2008). ‘Disability, heroism and Australian national identity.’ M/C Journal 11(3).

Marshall, T. and S. Newton (2000). ‘Scholarly design as a paradigm for practice- based research.’ Working papers in Art and Design 1. Retrieved 12 June, 2009, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol1/marshall2.html.

Masterson, L. (2009). ‘Private dancy’. The Sunday Mail. August 9. Brisbane, Queensland Newspapers: 14-15.

203

R EFERENCES

McCarthy, M. and D. Thompson. (1997). ‘A prevalence study of sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disabilities referred for sex education.’ Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10(2): 105-124.

McIntyre, P. (2003). ‘Free-to-airs feel ripple from Telstra’s TV splash’, Australian Media Guide, 24 July 2003, p.11.

McKee, A. (1996). ‘The message of the messenger: Tracey Moffatt and INXS write meanings on music video.’ Continuum (Perth) 9(2): 185-199.

McKee, A. (1996a). ‘'Superboong!...': the ambivalence of comedy and differing histories of race [The difference between Australian and American histories of Blackness on film.]’. Continuum (Perth) 10(2): 44-59.

McKee, A. (2000). ‘Stereotype.’ Routledge Critical Dictionary of Film and Television Theory. R. Pearson and P. Simpson. London and New York, Routledge: 424-5.

McKee, A. (2003). ‘Does it matter how people make sense of the world?’ Textual analysis: a beginner's guide. London, Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE

McKee, A. (2004). The public sphere: an introduction. Cambridge, University of Cambridge.

McKee, R. (1998). Story: substance, structure, style and the principles of screenwriting. London, Methuen.

McLean, S. (2006). ‘Top trops brave rain and snaky judges’. The Courier-Mail. 1 March. Brisbane, Queensland Newspapers: 13.

McLean, S. (2006a). ‘Drama reigns supreme in film finale’. The Courier-Mail. March 1. Brisbane, Queensland Newspapers: 19.

McLeish, K. (2007) ‘Thesis row.’ ABC Stateline (Online Transcript). June 15. Retrieved 17 June, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/default.htm

McNair, B. (2000). Journalism and democracy: an evaluation of the political public sphere. London and New York, Routledge.

McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory. New York and London, New York University Press.

Medhurst, A. (1991). ‘That special thrill: Brief Encounter, homosexuality and authorship.’ Screen 32(2): 197-208.

204

R EFERENCES

Meekosha, H. (2000). ‘A disabled genius in the family: Personal musings on the tale of two sisters.’ Disability and society 15(5): 811-815.

Mercer, K (1994). Welcome to the Jungle. London, Routledge.

Merchant, W. M. (1972). Comedy: the critical idiom. Metheun and Co.

Meredith, G. (1971). ‘An essay on comedy’. Comedy: a critical anthology. R. W. Corrigan and G. Loney. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

Morris, C. D., J. M. Niederbuhl et al. (1993). ‘Determining the capability of individuals with mental retardation to give informed consent.’ American Journal on Mental Retardation 98: 263-272.

Morris, J. (1996). Pride against prejudice: a personal politics of disability. London, The Women's Press.

Mulhern, K. (1997). ‘The only cripple in the room’. Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Murphy, G. H. and A. O'Callaghan. (2004). ‘Capacity of adults with intellectual disabilities to consent to sexual relationships.’ Psychological Medicine 34: 1347- 1357.

Mutz, D. C., and B. Reeves. (2005). ‘The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust.’ American Political Science Review 99: 1-15.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans’. Retrieved 15 September, 2009, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/e72-jul09.pdf

Nelson, J. A. (2003). ‘The invisible cultural group: images of disability’. Images that injure. P. M. Lester and S. D. Ross. London, Praeger.

Nichols, B. (1991). Representing the reality: issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington, Indiana UP.

Norden, M. F. (1994). ‘Politics, movies and physical disability’. The cinema of isolation: a history of physical disability in the movies. M. F. Norden. New Jersey, Rutgers University Press.

205

R EFERENCES

Norden, M. F. and M. A. Cahill. (1998). ‘Violence, women and disability tin Tod Browning’s Freaks and The Devil Doll.’ Journal of Popular Film and Television 26(2): 86-93.

Northway, R., R. Davies et al. (2004). Abuse of people with learning disabilities: an examination of policy, practice and educational implications in Wales. Pontypridd, School of Social Care Sciences, University of Glamorgan.

Northway, R., R. Davies et al. (2005). ‘Evidencing good practice in adult protection: informing the protection of people with learning disabilities from abuse.’ The Journal of Adult Protection 7(2): 28-36.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability from theory to practice. New York, St Martin's Press.

O'Reilly, C. (2007). ‘Laughing at the disabled.’ Indymedia Ireland. Retrieved 12 June, 2007, from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82765.

Partridge, D. (2007). ‘BIFF voters choose’. The Courier-Mail. August 15. Brisbane, Queensland Newspapers: 51.

Peters, S. (2000). ‘Is there a disability culture? A syncretisation of three possible world views.’ Disability and society 15(4): 583-601.

Pick, J. (1992). ‘Why have there been no great disabled artists?’ Disability Arts Magazine 2/4 (Winter): 18-20.

Pointon, A. (1997). ‘Introduction.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Pointon, A. (1997a). ‘Doors to performance and production.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Pointon, A. (1997b). ‘Television - Fact and fiction: Introduction.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Pointon, A. (1997c). ‘Disability and documentary.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon and w. C. Davies. London, British Film Institute.

Porter, M., D. Larson, A. Harthcock, and K. Berg Nellis. (2002). ‘Re(de)fining narrative events: examining television narrative structure.’ Journal of Popular Film and Television Spring 2002, 30(1): 23-30.

206

R EFERENCES

Potter, W. J. (1994). ‘Cultivation theory and research: a methodological critique.’ Journalism Monographs 147: 1-34.

Queensland University of Technology (2007). ‘Appendix 9: Queensland University of Technology Doctor of Philosophy Regulations (IF49): section 12.2’. Manual of Policies and Procedures. Retrieved 12 January, 2010, from http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/Appendix/appendix09.jsp#12%20Confirmation%20 of%20Candidature

Rabiger, M. (2008). Directing: film techniques and aesthetics. Amsterdam, Elsevier and Focal Press.

Rapley, M. (2004). The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge, NY, Cambridge University Press.

Riddle, K. (2007). Always on my mind: Exploring how frequent, recent, and vivid television portrayals are used in the formation of social reality judgments. University of California, Santa Barbara. PhD.

Roscoe, J. and C. Hight (2001). Faking it: Mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality. Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press.

Ross, K. (1996). Black and White Media. Oxford, Polity Press.

Rubinstein, E. A. (1983). ‘Television and behaviour: research conclusions of the 1982 NIMH report and their policy implications.’ American Psychologist 38(7): 820-825.

Safran, S. P. (1998). ‘Disability portrayal in film: reflecting the past, directing the future.’ Exceptional Children 64(2): 227.

Safran, S. P. (1998a). ‘The first century of disability portrayal in film: an analysis of the literature.’ The Journal of Special Education 31(4): 467-479.

Sanders, K. Y. (2006). ‘Overprotection and lowered expectations of persons with disabilities: the unforeseen consequences.’ Work 27(June): 181-188.

Schaeffer, N. (1981.). The art of laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. London, Ashgate.

Schuchman, J. S. (1984). ‘Silent movies and the deaf community.’ Journal of Popular Culture 17: 58-78.

207

R EFERENCES

Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

Seger, L. (1990). Creating unforgettable characters. New York, Henry Holt and Company.

Seger, L. (2003). Advanced screenwriting. Beverly Hills, Silman-James Press.

Shakespeare, T. (1999). ‘Art and lies? Representations of disability on film.’ Disability Discourse. M. Corker and S. French. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. Oxon, Routledge.

Shanahan, J. and M. Morgan. (1999). Television and its viewers: cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Smith, E. (1999). ‘Thread structure: rewriting the Hollywood formula.’ Journal of film and video 51(3/4): 88.

Smith, J. R. (1997). Writing tricksters: Mythic gambols in American ethnic literature. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Smith, R. M. and M. Sapon-Shevin (2008-9). ‘Disability humour, insults and inclusive practice.’ Social Advocacy and Systems Change 1(2).

Sontag, S. (1978). Illness as metaphor. New York, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Stewart, R. (2001). ‘Practice v praxis: constructing models for practitioner-based research.’ Text Journal 5 (2).

Stronach, I. and J. Allan. (1999). ‘Joking with disability: what's the difference between the comic and the tragic in disability discourses?’ Body and Society 5(4): 31-45.

Strong, A. (2007a). ‘Freedom of speech disabled at QUT.’ Retrieved 23 May, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEucGUEQFwA.

Strong, A. (2007b). ‘Disability community speaks out against QUT.’ Retrieved 2 October, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xql7w3xPC8Q.

Strong, A. (2007c). ‘QUT International Students Speak Out - Part 2: Norway.’ Retrieved 19 June, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr9rtwMFXOM.

Sutherland, A. (1997). ‘Black Hats and Twisted Bodies.’ Framed: interrogating disability in the media. A. Pointon. London, British Film Institute.

208

R EFERENCES

Sutherland, C. (2008). ‘Q&A (with Luke Ford).’ The Herald-Sun. 6 March. Melbourne: 3.

Test, D. W., C. H. Fowler et al. (2005). ‘A conceptual framework of self- advocacy for students with disabilities.’ Remedial and Special Education 26(1): 43-55.

Thompson, E. (2007). ‘Comedy verité? The observational documentary meets the televisual sitcom.’ Velvet Light Trap Fall 2007, 60: 63-72.

Thompson, K. (1988). Breaking the glass armor. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Thompson, K. (1999). Storytelling in the new Hollywood: understanding classical narrative technique. Cambridge, Harvard Unviersity Press.

Thomson, R. G. (2000). ‘Staring back: self-representations of disabled performance artists.’ American Quarterly 52(2): 334-338.

Thomson, R. G. (2001). ‘Seeing the disabled: visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography.’ The new disability history: American perspectives. P. K. Longmore and L. Umanksy. New York and London, New York University Press: 335-374.

Tracey, J. (2007). ‘Laughing at “THE DISABLED”- power, perception and prejudice’. Paradigm Oz. Retrieved 24 July, 2007, from http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/laughing-at-the-disabled-power- perception-and-prejudice/#more-203

UPIAS (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London, UPIAS.

Vallenga, D., M. Grypdonck et al. (2007). ‘Improving decision-making in caring for people with epilepsy and intellectual disability: an action research project.’ Journal of Advanced Nursing: Original Research 7 August 2007: 261-271.

Vasey, R. (2008). ‘The Hollywood industry paradigm.’ The Sage handbook of film studies. J. Donald and M. Renov. London, Sage Publications.

Vella, R. (2005). ‘Keeping the degree creative.’ Realtime August-September (68). Retrieved 16 October, 2009, from www.realtimearts.net/article/issue68/7916.

Vogler, C. (1999). The Writer's Journey. Basingstoke and Oxford, Pan MacMillan.

209

R EFERENCES

Vorhaus, J. (1994). The comic toolbox : how to be funny even if you're not. St. Leonards, N.S.W, Allen & Unwin.

Wagg, S. (1998). ‘Introduction.’ Because I tell a joke or two: comedy, politics, and social difference. S. Wagg. London; New York, Routledge: xi-xiv.

Walter, R. (1988). Screenwriting: the art, craft and business of film and television writing. New York, Penguin.

Weinstein and Weinstein. (1991). ‘Georg Simmel: Sociological Flaneur Bricoleur.’ Theory, Culture, Society 8: 151-168.

Weston, J. (1996.). Directing actors: creating memorable performances for film and television. Studio City, CA, Michael Wiese Productions.

Whittington-Walsh, F. (2002). ‘From freaks to savants: disability and hegemony from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) to Sling Blade (1997).’ Disability and Society 17(6): 695-707.

Williams, E. (2008). ‘The brother of all conflicts.’ The Australian. 8 March. Sydney: 22.

Williams, S. (1997). ‘House with an encouraging view.’ The Australian. January 6. Sydney: 14.

Wolfensberger, W. (2000). ‘A brief overview of the principles of social role valorisation.’ Mental Retardation 38: 105-124.

Wolfson, K. and M. F. Norden. (2000). ‘Film images of people with disabilities.’ Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: research and application. D. O. Braithwaite and T. L. Thompson. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zarb, G. (1992). ‘On the road to Damasacus: first steps toward changing the relations of disability research production.’ Disability and society 7(2): 125-138.

Zeltner, M. (1993). Television narrative: an analysis of the evolution of scene function and narrative structure in the situation comedy. Universiy of Missouri- Columbia. PhD.

Zettl, H. (2009). Television production handbook. Belmont, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

210

R EFERENCES

F ILMS AND T ELEVISION PROGRAMS

Adam. Dir: Max Mayer. 2009. American Movie. Dir: Chris Smith. 1999. Arrested Development. Dir: Joe Russo et al. Exec. Prod: Mitchell Hurwitz, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Diane Mercer, David Nevins. 2003-2006. Best In Show. Dir: Christopher Guest. 2000. Black Balloon, The. Dir: Elissa Downes. 2007. Blair Witch Project, The. Dir: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez. 1999. Boom. Dir: Michael Noonan. 1999. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Dir: Larry Charles. 2006. Cagney and Lacey. Dir: Reza Badiyi et al. Exec. Prod: Barney Rosenzweig. 1982. Curb Your Enthusiasm. Dir: Robert B. Weide et al. Exec. Prod: Larry David et al. 2000-2011. Dance Me To My Song. Dir: Rolf de Heer. 1998. F**k the Disabled. Dir: Eli Kabillio. 2001. Forrest Gump. Dir: Robert Zemeckis. 1994. Freaks. Dir: Tod Browning. 1932. Goodbye CP. Dir: Kazuo Hara. 1972. Hilary and Jackie. Dir: Anand Tucker. 1998. I Am Sam. Dir: Jessie Nelson. 2001. Ironside. Dir: Don Weis et al. Exec. Prod: Cy Chermak.1967. Lawnmower Man, The. Dir: Brett Leonard. 1992. Link. Produced by ATV/Central. 1976. Lost in La Mancha. Dir: Keith Fulton, Louis Pepe. 2003. McLeod’s Daughters. Dir: Arnie Custo et al. Exec. Prod: P. Graeme-Evans. 2001. My One Legged Dream Lover. Dir: Penny Fowler-Smith. 1998. Of Mice and Men. Dir: Gary Sinise. 1992.

211

R EFERENCES

One in Four. Produced by BBC Television. 1986. Quads! Dir: John Callahan. 2001. Rain Man. Dir: Barry Levinson. 1988. Shadow of the Vampire. Dir: E. Elias Merhige. 2001. Six Million Dollar Man, The. Dir: Dick Moder et al. Exec. Prod: H.Bennett. 1974. Struck by Lightning. Dir: Jerry Domaradski. 1990. The Ringer. Dir: Barry M. Blaustein. 2006. This is Spinal Tap. Dir: Rob Reiner. 1984. Unlikely Travellers. Dir: Michael Noonan. 2007. Waiting for Guffman. Dir: Christopher Guest. 1996. X-Files, The. Dir: Kim Manners et al. Exec. Prod: Chris Carter. 1993.

212