‘Separating the Sheep from the Goats’: The Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals (1965-1972)

This paper is the third and final instalment of an organisational history of the formative years of the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals. Over the period from 1965-1972 the two Festivals negotiated with a new form of challenge – the proliferation of a variety of other film festivals around Australia. Despite their commitment to the spread of ‘film culture’, Sydney and Melbourne did not welcome this development. The industrial realities of their situation meant that the newer film festivals were ‘competition’, and as such Sydney and Melbourne attempted to restrict them in a fashion that was analogous to the operation of an economic cartel.

This ‘oligopoly’ formed by Sydney and Melbourne was, in many ways, a natural development – for over this period the Sydney festival was moving away from its amateur status to becoming a genuinely professional organisation, comparable in size and stature to Melbourne. The catalyst for this development was the rise of David Stratton to Sydney’s directorship.[1]

Stratton was elected to the Sydney organising committee in 1964, and became director in 1966 (after the retirement of Ian Klava). Along with an encyclopaedic knowledge of film, Stratton brought with him a strong desire to make the Sydney festival a far more prestigious and professional event. He was also to develop a close friendship with Rado, which helped further to improve and cement the relationship between the two film festivals.

The Sydney Film Festival’s professionalisation paralleled the developments undertaken by Melbourne in earlier years. First, the festival moved away from the University and into commercial exhibition houses. In 1967 it moved to the Orpheum and the Wintergarden in 1967; in 1968 it moved to the State Theatre. Second, the film procurement methods were reorganised, and Stratton began taking regular overseas trips to source films. Third, the committee structure of the festival was over-hauled, and the Directorship given much more authority.

Indeed, by 1968 it could be said that in many ways, the Sydney Festival now surpassed the Melbourne Festival. Sydney had a larger income, a younger and more dynamic Director – and was establishing a strong national and international reputation. This is perhaps best represented by the fact that it was Sydney, rather than Melbourne, that secured the presence of the Festivals’ first major international guest – Satyajit Ray – for the opening nights of the 1968 Festivals.[2]

Before turning to examine the Festivals’ attempts to deal with their rivals, it should be noted that there is one important story that is not being told here. Beginning in 1965, the two Festivals began a campaign to liberalise Australia’s film censorship legislation. Partly owing to reasons of space, and partly because it has been dealt with elsewhere, the details of this campaign will not be discussed here. However, it can be said that this campaign achieved some notable successes. It brought the issue of censorship to broad public attention in Australia, and contributed substantially to the liberalisation of the film classification system. In the process, the Festivals had, of course, also achieved a great deal of publicity – and successfully positioned themselves as two of the major cultural organisations in Australia.[3]

Alliance against upstarts

As discussed in the previous paper, the period from 1959 to 1964 had been marked by the Festivals’ attempts to negotiate a position for themselves in relation to the trade. Although such problems continued, the period dealt with here sees a new sort of institutional pressure – competition from other Australian international film festivals. The development of these film festivals created two interconnected problems for Sydney and Melbourne. Firstly, the new festivals were competing for limited product; secondly, they greatly increased the total festival audience in Australia. These two problems threatened not only to reignite conflict with the domestic trade, but also endangered the two established Film Festivals’ chances of continuing to receive FIAPF endorsement. There were thus good industrial reasons for Sydney and Melbourne to perceive the new festivals as a threat. However, weighing against this was the cultural imperative that Sydney and Melbourne were ostensibly committed to: to encourage the growth of ‘film culture’. This section examines the negotiation between these two imperatives, and shows how, in the end, the industrial imperatives win out. Under pressure from FIAPF, and deeply concerned about the continuing viability and stature of their own festivals, Melbourne and Sydney act together against the new festivals.

Over this period, new international film festivals appear in every state and territory in Australia. These include those festivals that had been part of the Australian Film Festival, Adelaide and Canberra. Other festivals are established in Alice Springs, Brisbane, Perth, and Tasmania. In addition, this period also sees the beginnings of international film festivals in New Zealand.

The oldest of these new festivals was the Adelaide International Film Festival, which had continued to run since its advent as part of the Australian Film Festival in 1959. For its first few years, Adelaide had been supported by Melbourne, which had assisted the former in matters of film procurement. However, with increasing pressure from FIAPF and the trade, this issue of film procurement became more and more problematic. At the beginning of 1964, Rado informed Eric Williams, Adelaide’s Director, that this support would have to end, and that the two festivals needed to “emphasise [their] separate identities”, because “They are awfully touchy overseas about us three Festivals using rather identical films, no amount of talk or geography will change their attitude”.[4]

For this reason, the Adelaide organising committee decided to bypass Melbourne for their 1965 programme. At the 1965 Festival, a number of films sourced from countries represented by FIAPF (but not governed by FIAPF restrictions) were screened. Because the Adelaide Festival began earlier in the year than its east coast counterparts, these screenings were the Australian premieres of the films in question, and were advertised as such. This action directly undermined the stature of the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals, which based part of their prestige on their role as premiere festivals. Unsurprisingly, Sydney Festival Director Ian Klava was angered by Adelaide’s action; the Sydney minutes record that he was now “losing patience with the Adelaide festival”, which was, in his words, just a “parasite” of Sydney and Melbourne.[5]  In order to deal with this problem, the Sydney committee instructed Adelaide to alter the dates of future festivals, so that they would come after rather than before the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals. If Adelaide refused to do this, Sydney threatened to refuse to share films in future, and would also attempt to use its influence in the trade to restrict Adelaide’s programming choices.[6]

The appearance of an international film festival in Brisbane prompted the Sydney and Melbourne organising committees to resolve on a blanket policy of not supporting the establishment of any new international film festivals in Australia. As part of this policy, it was decided that Entry Forms for films participating in the Melbourne Film Festival would contain a clause stating that screening at any other event outside Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide would only be allowed with written permission from the Melbourne organising committee.[7]

Klava, however, was not able to persuade his own organisation – and the Sydney organising committee over-ruled him in favour of giving full cooperation to Brisbane.[8] The Sydney committee decided against following Melbourne’s ‘anti-sharing’ clause in Entry Forms, because they believed that Brisbane “earnestly wished to avoid causing any trouble to existing festivals”.[9]

Sydney’s policy towards Brisbane, however, was soon to change. To begin with, Sydney became concerned about the possible damage that cooperation with Brisbane could cause to its relationship with Melbourne.[10] In addition, in early 1966 it also faced the emergence of a direct competitor within its own city. This was the NSW International Film Festival, organised by students at the University of New South Wales. The NSW Festival was in part a reaction to what the Sydney Festival had become, and claimed to be more radical, authentic and democratic than Sydney.[11] As part of this, the new festival announced openly that they would be operating independently of FIAPF – and thus ideally working as a genuinely autonomous international festival (like that in Edinburgh).[12] Of course, the NSW Festival could no more ignore industrial realities than any other festival, and promised a series of incentives to encourage the trade. These included prizes, commercial release to all entrants, and customs duty paid on all films. [13]

Sydney’s new Director, David Stratton, had no intention of allowing the NSW Film Festival to continue in direct competition with his Festival. After first hearing of the NSW Festival’s existence, Stratton wrote to Rado complaining that it had been established in “an aura of great secrecy” by “lone wolves”, and was deliberately “setting up in opposition” to Sydney.[14]  Rado replied that:

I am somewhat amused at your Committee’s sudden concern now that one has sprung up in your backyard, as contrasted with our thoughts about Brisbane. [15]

Seeking out information that could be used to discredit the new festival, in April 1966 Stratton discovered that the Director and Secretary of the NSW Festival had established a commercial film exhibition company. This provided Stratton with evidence that the new festival might be a front for a commercial enterprise. Armed with this information, he wrote to FIAPF and requested its intervention.[16] Furthermore, when the NSW Festival placed an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald, Stratton immediately retaliated with a public notice in the same paper dissociating the Sydney Festival from the new festival.[17]

As events transpired, Stratton’s concern was unnecessary, for the first NSW Film Festival proved to be the last. Held at the University of NSW from 12-22 August 1966, only about 600 of the 2000 tickets were sold. As Rado noted, it had turned out to be only a “paper tiger”.[18] Furthermore, the new festival had also burnt its bridges with the trade. The promised commercial releases – which had led some distributors to withdraw their films from Sydney and Melbourne – never eventuated. Stratton ensured that this fact was widely publicised amongst the trade – vowing to “get a strong anti-NSW letter to every film source”.[19]

Along with Brisbane and the NSW Festival, a number of other new festivals also emerged in 1966. In mid-April, the Melbourne organising committee received a letter from the Hobart Film Society asking for cooperation with the inaugural Tasmanian Film Festival; Rado replied in the negative.[20] In addition, the Alice Springs Film Society also held their first international film festival that year.[21]

The appearance of so many new international film festivals in Australia forced Sydney and Melbourne to develop a joint formal policy for dealing with the situation. This began with an informal correspondence on the issue between the two directors. In April, Rado wrote to Stratton to try to persuade him to support a policy of not sharing films with any other film festivals.[22] In his reply, Stratton reluctantly agreed to participate, although he still felt that such a policy could aggravate other festivals into outright opposition.[23] Rado responded that this danger should be of little concern, as the new festivals were too weak to challenge the established festivals in Melbourne and Sydney (which were now over ten years old). Furthermore, Rado argued that this ‘exclusionist’ policy could enhance the prestige of Sydney and Melbourne – remarking that “Exclusivity makes it clear to overseas entrants that our two festivals are of a different stature [from the rest]”.[24]

Following this exchange of correspondence, the two Directors managed to persuade their respective committees of the need for such an exclusivity policy. Shortly after their 1966 Festivals, both Sydney and Melbourne agreed that from this point onwards, their Entry Forms would incorporate a clause binding entrants to participation in the two Festivals only. The primary justification given for this unanimous decision was that “Australian festivals are rapidly becoming a joke overseas” amongst major producers, because “films entered here are ‘bled to death'”. [25]

The proliferation of Australian film festivals was not only of concern to Sydney and Melbourne, but had also managed to attract the attention of FIAPF. In October of 1966, Rado received a letter from W.L. Morrison, Acting Secretary to the Australian Department of External Affairs. Morrison stated that he had been contacted by Brisson, the Secretary of FIAPF, who was requesting clarification about the number and status of the various international film festivals now being held in Australia.[26]  If this clarification was not forthcoming, Brisson threatened that FIAPF would endorse no Australian international film festivals whatsoever. In the meantime, he withdrew FIAPF endorsement for the 1967 Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals, until (and unless) their status was ratified by the Australian government.[27]

Faced with this request from the Australian government, Stratton and Rado discussed the best strategies for maintaining their FIAPF endorsement. They agreed that their central strategy would be (in Rado’s words) to “separate the sheep from the goats” – that is, to demonstrate that only Sydney and Melbourne had the prestige and history worthy of FIAPF endorsement.[28]

Less than a week later, the Melbourne Film Festival publicly announced the ‘exclusivity clause’ as its formal policy, and Rado wrote to the Brisbane, Tasmania and Adelaide Festivals justifying its adoption. In these letters, Rado argued that the recent “mushrooming” of Australian festivals may have been responsible for the withholding of important films by producers, who now considered Australia’s situation “a bad joke”.[29] To this, he added apologetically that:

This decision was made all the harder to come to, as all organisers of festivals in this country are closely connected with the film society movement, whose common aim is the propagation of good film. My committee is anxious that their decision should not be taken as an attempt to stifle the activities of other festivals. In fact, my committee hopes that the other festivals will continue to exhibit films which are in distribution in the country, but which would not normally reach the commercial screen in their respective cities. [30]

The tension between cultural legitimacy and industrial imperatives manifests itself acutely in this letter. Rado justifies his decision to the other festivals on purely cultural grounds. His overall argument is that “good films” might be withheld by the trade from the Australian public if Melbourne does not adopt this exclusionist clause. Hence, the clause is in fact in the interests of film culture and ‘the propagation of good film’. In other words, unlike in a purely industrial context, the cartel-like behaviour of Sydney and Melbourne (in setting up the monopoly arrangement of the exclusivity clause) could not be justified in terms of naked self-interest. Rather, as cultural organisations needing to maintain their legitimacy, these decisions need to be justified in terms of cultural imperatives (such as the need to maintain access to ‘quality film’ in Australia).

Despite the ‘cultural’ veneer that Rado gave his decision, the exclusivity clause was poorly received by the smaller Australian film festivals. This is unsurprising, seeing that it was likely to deny them the chance of screening major international releases – and thus effectively reduce them to being very minor players. When Rado attended the next meeting of the Australian Council Of Film Societies (ACOFS) in early 1967, representatives from Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland “condemned the agreement”, while South Australia was “particularly aggressive” and threatened “reprisals”. Rado was informed at that meeting that the Melbourne Film Festival would receive a formal letter requesting that the exclusivity clause be abandoned.[31]

However, neither Sydney nor Melbourne were prepared to withdraw this clause, as their endorsement by FIAPF now depended upon it. FIAPF had eventually agreed to reinstate the endorsement for the 1967 Sydney and Melbourne Festivals – primarily on the condition that they agreed to maintain their exclusivity clause. In other words, from this point on FIAPF would only endorse two Australian film festivals. Brisson also took this opportunity to raise the registration fee from AUS$500 to AUS$1000, suggesting that this increase was justified as “a preventative measure for eager enthusiasts”.[32]

Adelaide Director Eric Williams was not prepared, however, to accept the exclusivity clause and his loss of FIAPF endorsement as a fait accompli. After the 1967 Adelaide Festival, Williams flew to Paris to negotiate in person with Brisson. Williams held one drawcard over Sydney and Melbourne – namely, the Adelaide Film Festival was under the patronage of the Adelaide Festival of Arts, which had both federal and state government endorsement. Williams was thus able to prove to Brisson that Adelaide had the government endorsement required for FIAPF recognition – something which neither Sydney nor Melbourne could lay claim to. Brisson, swayed by this, recommended as a compromise that the three festivals share their programme on alternate years, with one state holding a retrospective festival every third year to replace the contemporary festival.[33]

Both Stratton and Rado were deeply concerned about the ramifications of Williams’ actions. They agreed that Brisson’s offer should be rejected.[34] But if Adelaide received FIAPF endorsement independently, then, as Stratton suggested, “one of us will have to go!”[35] Stratton was concerned that this in turn could lead Sydney and Melbourne into damaging competition for the second possible FIAPF endorsement. However, as he wrote to Rado:

I’m determined that nothing will affect relations between Sydney and Melbourne Festivals, and I hope that by working closely together as we are now we can together stay ahead of Eric’s machinations. [36]

Eric Williams continued to pursue his line of action. He made an overseas tour in 1967, which involved “energetic agitations” to secure films for the 1968 Adelaide programme. His success with the overseas trade resulted in the loss of a number of films for the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals.[37] Williams also formed an alliance with a major New Zealand film society, to run a combined Auckland-Adelaide Film Festival.[38]

Williams combined these attempts to establish Adelaide as an independent film festival, with gestures towards improving relations with Sydney and Melbourne. At the beginning of 1968, he lunched with Stratton – who remarked in a letter to Rado that he found Williams “affable” if “not entirely convincing”.[39] Rado, on the other hand, continued to find Williams “offensive”. Indeed, Rado was later (in 1969) to refer to Williams as “an abominable pig, a blackmailer and an absolutely ruthless operator”.[40]  In his reply to Stratton’s letter, Rado warned the Sydney Director to be on his guard:

I don’t trust the man at all. He needs your help just now, so he is friendly. When he’ll find a handy knife to stab you with, he’ll use it without hesitation … Eric, incidentally, has not called on me, nor will he, nor do I have any desire to see him. [41]

After the 1970 Festivals, with the threat from Adelaide growing, Stratton set out systematically to prevent any possibility of Williams’s festival obtaining FIAPF endorsement. Stratton’s first move was, whilst on his annual tour, to meet with FIAPF General Secretary Brisson in Paris to discuss Adelaide. Stratton knew full-well that the most damaging accusation that could be levelled against Adelaide (at least as far as FIAPF was concerned) was that the Festival was a commercial venture. Having been persuaded that Adelaide was indeed such a venture, Brisson proposed a range of punitive measures.[42]

Although Rado shared Stratton’s desire to prevent Adelaide’s chances of gaining FIAPF endorsement, he had to be much more circumspect in acting. As Director of the AFI, Rado had to appear completely non-partisan and to support the expansion of film culture throughout Australia. He thus writes to Stratton in late 1970:

I am terribly in the gun for our stand against Adelaide … in the Institute; I have Alan Stout being indignant because we refuse to share … Stanley Hawes fulminates against FIAPF, and I have to live, forgive me for my sins. So I can’t write to Brisson – if it somehow gets out that I “informed” against Adelaide, I’ll lose my job. [43]

This meant that, in dealing with the threat of Adelaide, Stratton had to take on the role of ‘enforcer’ as it were, whilst receiving moral support from Rado in private correspondence.

At the beginning of 1971, the threat of Adelaide’s quest for FIAPF endorsement became more urgent, owing to yet another set of FIAPF demands on Sydney and Melbourne. In January, Brisson informed Rado that the previous arrangements, whereby Sydney and Melbourne were allowed to screen the same FIAPF-endorsed films, would be unacceptable from 1972 onwards.[44]

The damaging implications of this new demand from FIAPF were the subject of intense discussion between Sydney and Melbourne in the months that followed.[45] As Rado noted, the new regulation “would lead us to competing for films, which is the last thing either of us wants to do, I think”.[46]

In order to strengthen the two Festivals’ negotiating position with FIAPF, Stratton decided to assemble a detailed case against Adelaide’s own application for endorsement, and in support of the dual endorsement of Sydney and Melbourne. If he could convince FIAPF that the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals were of equal status, then it would make the choice between them effectively arbitrary – which could help encourage Brisson to continue the current arrangement. In addition, if Brisson could be convinced that Adelaide was not worth endorsing, then this could perhaps encourage the FIAPF secretary to abandon the new regulation altogether.

The Sydney Festival’s first move was to establish an ‘action group’ to build the case for FIAPF.[47] This group then pursued a three-pronged strategy. First, they began to gather information that might help reduce Adelaide’s chances of receiving FIAPF endorsement (including the Festival’s regulations, sales record, and so forth).[48] Second, they commissioned a professional market research organisation to prepare an independent report, that would highlight the extent to which Sydney and Melbourne were the only two cities worthy of FIAPF recognition.[49] Third, they pursued letters of formal support from the domestic trade.[50]  In addition, to eliminate any threat of direct competition between them, both Sydney and Melbourne agreed to the following resolution: “if FIAPF should insist that the Melbourne and Sydney Festivals were not to share any films, the two Festivals would decide to forgo FIAPF endorsement”.[51]

The documentation gathered by the ‘action group’ was sent to FIAPF in July 1971, but the Festivals were not content to let matters rest there.[52] In October 1971, Stratton was still writing letters to various international producers’ associations, asking for them to contact FIAPF in support of Sydney and Melbourne. The argument that Stratton proffers for dual endorsement in these letters includes the standard ground of the geographical distance between the two cities, as well as a supposed marked divergence in “temperament” – suggesting that Melbourne and Sydney offered distributors two distinctly different markets.[53]

By the end of 1971, the efforts of the two Festivals had paid off, and FIAPF withdrew its initial demand. In December, Brisson accepted a compromise position proposed by the Festivals, and informed Melbourne and Sydney that he was offering them dual endorsement under revised regulations.[54]

It was only in 1973 that the Festivals’ rivalry with Adelaide came to an end. For in that year, Adelaide received its own independent FIAPF endorsement – as a film festival specialising in experimental works and ‘opera prima’. This conveniently meant that Adelaide was no longer competing with Sydney and Melbourne for either a FIAPF endorsed position, or for similar film products.

With the industrial pressures to compete removed, it became possible for the two major Festivals to establish a truce with Adelaide. In April 1973, after hearing of FIAPF’s decision, Rado wrote to Stratton that:

I feel rather relieved about Adelaide … I really hate fighting and all the bitchery that went on in the past.[55]

The same day, Rado also wrote to Williams, stating that:

I welcome you to the new era of relationship between our festivals, which seems to me the logical outcome of your obtaining FIAPF endorsement at last. [56]

At a meeting in May, Rado informed the Melbourne committee that “the prolonged hostility between the Melbourne/Sydney and Adelaide Festivals was causing the loss of some good films, and it was suggested that harmony be restored”.[57] To cement the new relationship, Rado invited Eric Williams (the Adelaide Director) and his wife to attend the Melbourne Film Festival Opening Night in 1973.[58] Indeed, after the 1973 Festival, both Sydney and Melbourne changed their official ‘exclusionary clause’ to allow films to be shared, “in a limited number of cases”, with the Adelaide Festival.[59]

From 1958 to 1973, the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals had been forced to accommodate and negotiate with the demands of FIAPF, as one of the most powerful film producers’ associations in the world. As has been discussed throughout this study, the Festivals’ relationship with FIAPF represented their rawest encounter with the demands of industry, unmediated by any appeal to issues of cultural legitimacy. However, as the above narrative indicates, by the late 1960s, the growing prestige and importance of Sydney and Melbourne had also given them increased bargaining power with FIAPF – a fact which was skilfully exploited by both organising committees.

Social Arrival

By 1972, there is a clear sense that both the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals had ‘arrived’. Every festival from 1965 onwards had been a sell-out, and both festivals had large waiting lists of hopeful subscribers.[60] Indeed, tickets to the Festivals were so sought after that problems of gate-crashing and ticket-hawking began to grow. Indeed, at the 1972 Sydney Festival, a subscriber was “brutally kicked by a gatecrasher … and hospitalised”.[61]

Furthermore, both of the Festivals were now considered as premier social and cultural events in the lives of their respective cities. Both received extensive coverage from the major press and magazines, and were regularly attended by the city’s social set (socialites, stars of television and theatre, and other celebrities) and various dignitaries (such as politicians, ambassadors, state governors, and the like). The media coverage combined analysis and criticism of specific films as well as commentary and discussion of the programme as a whole. However, in what is perhaps the clearest revelation of the Festivals’ rise to social prominence, substantial media attention was now being paid not only to their role as film culture events, but also to their role as social events. The ‘social’ and ‘gossip’ columns of the press and magazines would now discuss the who’s who of the Festival audiences – and, of course, what they wore.[62]

One example of this sort of coverage will suffice to give a sense of its nature. Diana Fisher, the social columnist for the ‘Women’s section’ of the Sydney Morning Herald, described the Opening Night of the 1970 Sydney Festival as follows:

The Governor, Sir Roden Cutler, and Lady Cutler were there to give it their blessing – and I saw my old friend Tom Lewis, the Minister for Lands, in the official party, as well as many others from the world of films, radio and television.

Chips Rafferty … Hazel Phillips nipping through the candlelit hall in a honey-coloured pantsuit, and towering tall and striking all in black, Maggie Tabberer. Harry Miller hobbled around, also in black, but worn with a turquoise evening shirt as did my husband H. [63]

* * *

In conclusion, by 1973 the Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals had travelled far from their amateur roots, and become important cultural institutions in their respective cities. Although they had initially defined themselves in purely ‘cultural’ terms, the narrative dealt with in these three papers has shown how they were also forced to negotiate with the various demands of ‘industry’ – represented both by the local distributors, and international production houses (via FIAPF).

In particular, as discussed above, both Sydney and Melbourne had acted in a thorough and determined way to eradicate the threat posed by the new Australian festivals. This was embodied in their formal policies (most notably, the ‘exclusionary clause’), and also in persistent behind-the-scenes attempts both to deny other film festivals FIAPF endorsement, and damage their relations with the commercial trade. In a sense, then, under the pressures imposed by the industrial context (namely, the restriction on film supply), Sydney and Melbourne acted much like any other cartel – to deny the entry of any competitors into their own ‘market-place’ of cultural goods.


[1] For a full discussion of Stratton’s Directorship, see C. Hope, “A history of the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals, 1945-1972” (University of Canberra, Ph.D. diss., 2004), ch. 4.
[2] Melbourne Film Festival, Minutes of Meetings, 2 July 1968. (Contained in the Melbourne Film Festival Archives, State Library of Victoria, Archive Box No. 33.)
[3] For discussion of the Film Festivals’ role in this debate, see C. Hope, chs. 4-5. For more general discussion, see I. Bertrand, Film Censorship in Australia (St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1978).
[4] MFF – Correspondence, Rado to Williams 3 February 1964, and Williams to Rado, 5 February 1964, Box No. 28.
[5] Sydney Film Festival, Minutes of Meetings, 6 July 1965. (Contained in the Sydney Film Festival Archives, State Library of NSW, Archive Box No. 2.)
[6] SFF – Min., 6 July 1965, Box No. 2.
[7] MFF – Min., 5 August 1965, Box No. 14.
[8] SFF – Min., 2 November 1965, Box No. 2; also MFF – Corr., Klava to Rado, 20 August 1965, Box No. 30.
[9] SFF – Min., 2 January 1965, Box No. 2.
[10] MFF – Corr., Rado to Klava, 25 January 1966, Box No. 30; MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 14 February 1966, Box No. 30.
[11] MFF – Arch., New South Wales International Film Festival – 1966 programme, Box No. 44.
[12] Anton Crouch, interview by Graham Shirley, Sydney, 4 September 1992 (Sydney Film Festival, Oral History Archives).
[13] Anton Crouch, interview by Graham Shirley, Sydney, 4 September 1992.
[14] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 20 March 1966, Box No. 35.
[15] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 22 March 1966, Box No. 35.
[16]  MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 21 April 1966, Box No. 35.
[17] SFF – Min., 3 May 1966, Box No. 2.
[18] MFF – Corr., Rado to Modesta Gentile (secretary of the SFF), 2 September 1966, Box No. 35.
[19] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 13 September 1966, Box No. 29.
[20] MFF – Min., 19 April 1966, Box No. 14.
[21]  MFF – Arch., Alice Springs Film Festival – 1966 programme, Box No. 44.
[22] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 27 April 1966, Box No. 35.
[23]  MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 29 April 1966, Box No. 35.
[24] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 4 May 1966, Box No. 35.
[25] MFF – Min., 18 July 1966, Box No. 14.
[26] MFF – Corr., Morrison to Rado, 4 October 1966, Box No. 35.
[27]  MFF – Corr., Morrison to Rado, 4 October 1966, Box No. 35.
[28] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 13 October 1966, Box No. 35.
[29] MFF – Corr., Rado to film festival Directors, 19 October 1966, Box No. 34.
[30] MFF – Corr., Rado to film festival Directors, 19 October 1966, Box No. 34.
[31]MFF – Min., 21 February 1967, Box No. 14.
[32] MFF – Min., 21 February 1967, Box No. 14.
[33] MFF – Corr., G. L. Klein (acting AIFF Director) to Rado, 21 August 1967, Box No. 40.
[34] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 24 August 1967, Box No. 40.
[35] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 19 September 1967, Box No. 40.
[36] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 24 August 1967, Box No. 40.
[37] MFF – Min., 22 February 1968, Box No. 14.
[38] Eric Williams, interview by C. Hope, Wollongong, 5 March 2001.
[39] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 16 February 1968, Box No. 44.
[40] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 28 May 1969, Box No. 47.
[41] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 21 February 1968, Box No. 44.
[42] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 11 September 1970, Box No.50.
[43] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 23 September 1970, Box No. 47.
[44] MFF – Corr., Brisson to Rado, 13 January 1971, Box No. 33; MFF – Corr., Brisson to Rado, 22 February 1971, Box No. 36.
[45] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 3 March 1971, Box No. 53.
[46] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 4 March 1971, Box No. 53.
[47] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 7 April 1971, Box No. 47.
[48] MFF – Corr., Stratton to Rado, 26 March 1971, Box No.47.
[49] This report was prepared by J. A. Cowl and Co. (“Market-Research Report”, 1971, MFF – Arch., Box No. 53). On the basis of a great variety of statistics, it concluded that Sydney and Melbourne “are 2.3 times more important than the rest of the Australian capital cities combined”, and therefore were alone in deserving FIAPF recognition.
[50] MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 8 April 1971, Box No. 55.
[51] MFF – Min., 15 April 1971, Box No. 33.
[52] MFF – Min., 15 July 1971, Box No. 55.
[53] MFF – Corr., Stratton to various organisations, 20 October 1971, Box No. 36.
[54] MFF – Min., 2 February 1972, Box No. 14.
[55]  MFF – Corr., Rado to Stratton, 10 April 1973, Box No. 60.
[56] MFF – Corr., Rado to Williams, 10 April 1973, Box No. 60.
[57] MFF – Min., 1 May 1973, Box No. 33.
[58] MFF – Corr., Williams to Rado, 30 May 1973, Box No. 60.
[59] MFF – Corr., Rado to Williams, 15 August 1973, Box No. 60.
[60] This is based upon various reports in the MFF and SFF minutes for this period.
[61] SFF – Min., “1972 Sydney Film Festival – Director’s Report”, 14 December 1972, Box No. 3.
[62] This picture is drawn from various press cuttings from the period contained in the MFF – Arch., Box No. 66.
[63  Diana Fisher, “Show Biz Invaded the Campus…”, Sydney Morning Herald – Women’s Section, 4 June 1970, press cuttings, MFF – Arch., Box No. 66.

Created on: Thursday, 30 November 2006 | Last Updated: 1-Dec-06

About the Author

Cathy Hope and Adam Dickerson

About the Authors

Cathy Hope

Cathy Hope is a lecturer in communication theory and practice at the Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra. Cathy's research interests include the history and operations of cultural organisations, and non-profit sector marketing strategies.

Adam Dickerson

Adam Dickerson studied history and philosophy at the University of NSW. He has been teaching at the University of Canberra for the past ten years, first in Communication and Media, and now in International Studies. His research interests include epistemology, communication ethics, and cultural history.View all posts by Cathy Hope and Adam Dickerson →