1) Your appointment
You were appointed in July 1966 when the Production Committee was re-organised. Do you remember the exact context in which this happened? How did you hear about the BFI, about the job? Did you know anyone there? Who interviewed you? Do you know if there were other applicants? Why do you think they gave you the job? Do you remember your starting salary? What was your status within the BFI then?

I HAD JUST RETURNED FROM NIGERIA AND WAS IN PARIS WHEN I SAW AN AD IN "THE TIMES" FOR THE PRODUCTION BOARD JOB. I'D BEEN UNABLE TO WORK IN ENGLAND BECAUSE OF UNION RULES & THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD POSITION FOR ME AS IT WAS NON-UNION. I WROTE AN APPLICATION AND WAS INTERVIEWED BY STANLEY REED, JOHN HUNTLEY AND , LATER, SIR MICHAEL BALCON. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY SELECTED ME .I ASSUMED THERE WERE NO OTHER APPLICANTS. STARTING SALARY WAS AROUND 40 POUNDS P/W.

2) Facilities/equipment
Do you remember when the production unit moved to its new premises in Waterloo? Was it just after you appointment? What kind of equipment were you given when you arrived? When did the BFI decided to appoint staff to help you? Do you remember who it consisted of? (supposedly Cedric Pheasant and someone else?)

WE MOVED TO WATERLOO NOT LONG AFTER MY APPOINTMENT. AS I HAD TO SUPERVISE THE FILMS IE MAKE SURE PUBLIC MONEY WAS BEING SPENT RESPONSIBLY, I POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SOMEWHERE FOR THE FILMMAKERS TO WORK. EDITING ROOMS WERE SET UP IN WATERLOO. CEDRIC PHEASANT WAS ALREADY ON STAFF IN SOME TECHNICAL CAPACITY.

3) Your role
You supervised around 70 films in your 5 years at the BFI. What exactly was your role, and did it change from film to film, according to the needs of the film-makers? Did you edit some of the films yourself, for instance? Did you consider yourself as an executive producer, or a 'studio manager'? What were your relations with the Production Board's Committee? Did they give you a lot of freedom in your job? Do you remember any particular difficulty with the Committee? Did you have 'allies' and 'enemies' on the Committee?

I HAD TO READ ALL THE SUBMITTED MATERIAL, MEET THE APPLICANTS AND WORK OUT A BUDGET FOR THEIR PROJECTS. IF THE FILMS WERE ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY AND FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE I PRESENTED THEM TO A COMMITTEE, CHAIRED BY SIR MICHAEL BALCON. THE COMMITTEE READ THE SCRIPTS AND VIEWED SUPPORTING MATERIAL, IF ANY - (SOME OF THE APPLICANTS HAD MADE PREVIOUS SHORT FILMS. ) THE COMMITTEE CONSISTED OF AROUND A DOZEN PEOPLE VARYING FROM DAVID SYLVESTER, THE ART CRITIC, TO JOHN BERGER (NOVELIST), SIR ARTHUR ELTON & BASIL WRIGHT (BOTH DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKERS). THEY ALL TOOK THE JOB PRETTY SERIOUSLY . THERE WERE VERY LIVELY DEBATES ABOUT WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED. FINANCE WAS VERY LIMITED AND EVERYONE WAS ANXIOUS TO MAKE WHAT THEY CONSIDERED THE BEST CHOICES. ONCE A FILM WAS APPROVED IT WAS MY JOB TO SEE IT WAS DONE WITHIN BUDGET AND TO GIVE THE FILM MAKER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IF HE/SHE NEEDED IT.

4) The Production Board's policy
Would you say the Board had a definite selection policy, or did it work in a very pragmatic way? What was, in your opinion, the Board's role, at a time when the National Film School was not in operation yet? Did it only seek to be a training centre for young talented film-makers who would then move to the 'mainstream' film industry, or rather a centre for experimentation with a view to change film culture in Britain and develop an 'art cinema' sector?

I HAD THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE KEEN TO SEE YOUNG PEOPLE GETTING A START IN THE FILM INDUSTRY. IN THOSE DAYS THE FILM UNION, THE ACTT, WAS VERY CONSERVATIVE AND NOT INCLINED TO LET YOUNG PEOPLE JOIN. IF THEY MADE A BFI FILM THEY AT LEAST HAD A CALLING CARD AND THE WAY INTO THE UNION COULD SOMETIMES BE SMOOTHED. SOME PEOPLE COULD USE THEIR FILMS TO HELP THEM GET INTO FILM SCHOOLS, OFTEN IN AMERICA.

5) The Production Board and the British avant-garde The previous question takes us to the relationship with the Production Board and the British film avant-garde of that period, represented by the (radical) work of the London Film-makers' Co-op, founded in October 1966. What was the nature of the relationship, if there was one? The Co-op seemed to be very critical of the Production Board's objectives at the time. They also unsuccessfully applied for grants for equipment several times in that period. What was YOUR approach to the avant-garde, and to psychedelic, 'underground', or 'structuralist' films? Did you attend some of the Co-op's screenings? Were you in touch with any of the London-based experimental film-makers working in that sphere? (eg Steve Dwoskin, Simon Hartog, Macolm LeGrice, Peter Gidal etc) Do you remember in what context the Production Board ended up funding psychedelic/underground films by Jeff Keen (Meatdaze), Tony Sinden (Size M, Arcade), Mark Boyle (Beyond Image) or Anthony Stern (San Francisco) between 1967 and 1970? Did you play an important role in their successful application for a grant?

I WAS AWARE, OF COURSE, OF THE FILM MAKERS CO-OP AND SAW MOST OF THEIR PROGRAMMES WHEN I WAS AT THE BFI. SOME OF THE PEOPLE THERE WERE TALENTED, I THOUGHT, AND OTHERS WERE STRONGER ON SELF PROMOTION THAN ANYTHING ELSE. OF COURSE, AT THAT TIME (LATE 60'S) THE KINDS OF GENERALLY NARRATIVE FREE FILMS THE CO-OP WERE MAKING WERE MORE OR LESS THE NORM AND SO MANY OF THEIR FILMS WERE SO SIMILAR IT WAS HARD TO TELL THE FILM MAKERS APART. AS I RECALL, THE BFI DID GIVE GRANTS/FACILITIES TO JEFF KEEN, TONY STERN, DAVID HALL, DEREK BOSCHIER, TONY SINDEN AND PROBABLY A FEW OTHERS.

6) The Production Board's achievements How would you rate the Production Board's overall achievements under your supervision? Did you only leave because of that opportunity to make a film in Australia, or were you disappointed with certain aspects of your work (for instance the regular lack of funds available)? Do you think your work for the Production Board and the experience gained there helped you to launch your career as a feature film-maker? Did you at all keep an interest in the evolution of the Production Board after you left?

I'VE NOT GIVEN MUCH THOUGHT TO THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE BOARD . BUT OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS IT'S BEEN GRATIFYING TO SEE A LOT OF THE NAMES I RECALL FROM THOSE DAYS CROPPING UP ON THE CREDITS OF FEATURE FILMS, EITHER AS DIRECTORS, EDITORS OR CAMERAMEN.

THE TINY BUDGET OF THE PRODUCTION BOARD WAS FRUSTRATING IN THE LONG RUN AND THE JOB, ALTHOUGH A GREAT LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ME, WAS ULTIMATELY THANKLESS. HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE APPLIED TO THE BOARD EACH YEAR AND IT WAS POSSIBLE ONLY TO SUPPORT A FEW OF THEM. THE OTHERS WERE RESENTFUL & IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ANY OF THEM THAT PERHAPS THE PEOPLE WHO WERE GIVEN THE GRANTS COULD'VE HAD ANY TALENT.
ONCE I RETURNED TO AUSTRALIA, IN 1972, I HAD NO FURTHER CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTION BOARD.