Stone

 

“Take a trip with Stone”

 

Original released in 1974.

‘Directors cut’ in 1999.

 

98 Minutes

 

Starring

Ken Shorter

....

Stone

Sandy Harbutt

....

Undertaker

Deryck Barnes

....

Doctor Townes

Hugh Keays-Byrne

....

Toad

Roger Ward (I)

....

Hooks

Vincent Gil (I)

....

Dr. Death

Dewey Hungerford

....

Septic

James H. Bowles

....

Stinkfinger

Bindi Williams

....

Captain Midnight

John Ifkovitch

....

Zonk

Lex Mitchell

....

Ballini

Rhod Walker

....

Chairman

Owen Weingott

....

Adler

Slim DeGrey

....

Hannigan

Ray Bennett (II)

....

Larsen

Bill Hunter (I)

....

Barman

Helen Morse

....

Amanda

Rebecca Gilling

....

Vanessa

Sue Lloyd

....

Tart

Rosalind Talamini

....

Sunshine

Victoria Anoux

....

Flossie

Jane Gilling

....

Euridyce

Eva Ifkovitch

....

Tiger

 

 

 

Film Produced by

 

Sandy Harbutt

 

Directed by

 

Sandy Harbutt

 

Written by

 

Sandy Harbutt and Michael Robinson

 

 

Bibliography

 

Richard Kuiper, Stone Forever rhttp://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?Article_ID=2612

 

Internet Movie Database

http://www.imdb.com

 

Making of Stone (Stone DVD)

 

Stone Forever (1999)

 

Stone (1974)

 

Australian national Cinema, Tom O’Regan,  1996, Routledge.

 

Stone’s presence in on line and filmic literature is somewhat thin on the ground, my primary source of material being the Making of Stone and the 1999 Documentary Stone Free, which while useful, was more a retrospective on the films impact than the Film itself, so I had to, a certain degree, rely on anecdotal evidence.

 

 

Stone Review

 

 

In the late sixties and early seventies, Australia, with the rise of the Australian Film institute, with the formation various funding bodies, with the emergence of the various tax breaks set out to not only to revitalize and sustain our gradually re-emerging film industry, but to create a national cinema. Not just a film industry but also a cinema. An attempt to create something we can show the world, to put ourselves on the cultural map. We made films of the nature  ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock’ (197*) and such like. We made our quality films and the rest of the world took notice. We did not merely want film, Australia was instead seeking high art.

 

‘Stone’ (1974) was not one of these films. Stone was instead something else. It lived in the places of genre. The biker film, the mystery film, the exploitation film. This is where Stone dwells and perhaps why it is unacknowledged. Australia has not excelled, particularly, in the arena of the genre film. Apart from occasional excursions within the 80’s and 90’s, brought by the rise of large budget cinema in the 80’s and the rise of the more overtly quirky films of the later 90’s, we have been lacking in this department. Stone however, can be regarded s the unacknowledged bastard stepchild of the 70’s mode of ‘high cinema’, banging its oversized and malformed head against the water pipes of cinema’s attic in an effort to be heard.

 

The member of the Gravediggers, a gang of ex-Vietnam, veteran, Satanist bikers is being murdered after one of their number witnesses the assassination of a pro-environment politician who is directing protest against a new waterside development. Only sighting the bikers club insignia, the assassin is forced to hunt and kill the various members of the gang in the hope one of them will be the witness, including a moderately infamous decapitation by wire of a motorcyclist. Finally, police officer Stone is sent in, to go undercover amongst the bikers, where is reluctantly and the gradually accepted, in turn accepting their way of life and seeing it as, perhaps, a better way, becoming all but part of it, up to participating in a gang related brawl. Eventually, however, after a vicious battle between the assassin and the Gravediggers, he makes a choice to which world he belongs and stops the bikers from taking the life of their predator. Following this, while in his home, his musings of the nature of the bikers is interrupted by the Gravediggers, who come in and nearly or perhaps do, stomp him near to death, stripping him of his gang initiation earring and club jacket. The movie closes with his second choice of where he belongs when he tells his wife, as she rings the police, the words that close the movie, the oft repeated refrain of the Gravediggers “No Cops.”

 

What perhaps separated Stone from the films of the era was its nihilism. While the films of the era, such as ‘The Cars That Ate Paris’ and ‘Walkabout’ concentrated on the rejection of the values of middle class and ‘high’ society a and, indeed, even the seminal American biker movie ‘Easy rider’ merely rejected a part of society, Stone was against all of society, from the police, to big business, to the counterculture, to merely the normal life of Stone and his wife. All of it was rejected in favor of the only sustainable value in the movies eyes, the motor cycle club, which is shown to be close because of both what they have been through and also who they can trust. They accept the dispossessed into their ranks and reject everything else. Their rejection is the realization that the rest of society discarded them first, sent them off to Vietnam to die and

 

To continue this point, one of the central ideas of Australian cinema is the idea of lifestyle as a character, however exaggerated. The shearing of ‘Sunday too far away’, the coastal tourism lifestyle of ‘Muriel’s Wedding’, the seedy Kings Cross underworld of ‘Two Hands’. These all make the backdrop against they occur as important as the characters themselves, as integral to the story and it’s flavor as the dialogue. This is something that is also apparent in Stone. The biker lifestyle becomes the movie, the rules and attitudes become the central character, stuck in a kind of doom romance with Officer Stone, his vicious beating at the films finale the actions of a jilted lover as much as the bikers revenge. His rejection of the police as much a rejection of his wife and the values, the lifestyle, she represents as an acceptance of biker culture. This too is true. A character becomes a lifestyle as well.

 

However, for all this, the film itself is hardly a work of art. It has aged badly, it’s atavistic bikers resembling relatively harmless hippies more than anything, it’s once shocking violence becoming, except for the brutal final scene, relatively tame. This is perhaps were the exploitation genre fails. It relies on shock, it relies on titillation and once these are gone, there isn’t truly that much left to the film. While still entertaining, still interesting, much of the entertainment value now comes from mocking the performances, the presence of the epynomous Bill Hunter and so forth.  Sadly, whatever Stone once was, now it has become a vaguely amusing joke.

 

There is, however, something special about what Sandy Harbutt did at the time. He became Australia’s first true Auteur. The film was entirely his vision, created from something he knew and sought to develop, writing the screenplay, directing in it, helping to perform the music and finally, acting within it. It was a film held together, more than anything, by a singular vision, something few other Auteur can truly claim. It was perhaps due to the climate of the seventies created by the Australian Film Commission that he was in fact able to do this, relying less on commercial or studio monies as otherwise might be the case, outside pressures that may cause a single vision to be compromised by many in the name of marketability, though, apparently, with limited funds, Harbutt had paid his camera crew and a sizable chunk of his cast in beer and pot.

 

Sandy Harbutt, however, has made nothing since, the only involvement in the Australian film industry he has had since was the chance to drive a truck, something he rejected so as not to deny a professional driver work. However, Stone experienced something of a revival at the hands of the Australian documentary ‘Stone Forever’ (1999), which explored the impact of the film both then and since, with a particular emphasis on biker culture. The screening of this, coupled with the movie, placed the film itself back on the Australian Film making map, as much due to the quality of the documentary, with many screenings filled with capacity, both with cinema aficionados and bikers.

 

In it’s own time, while immensely successful in the cinemas, Stone, like many classics of the exploitation genre, was even more of a hit at the drive in, something that is perhaps an entirely different cinematic culture. Perhaps the closest allegory to it’s performance, though Stone perhaps lacks the same level of memetic viral obsessive ness in it’s marketing and personal distribution as this particular contemporary, is the ‘Billy Jack’ series, which developed a broad audience through word of mouth, not a great deal like this having been produced in Australia before or since. Stone, upon it’s wider popularity being obtained, there were rumors that the film was apparently available in two prints, one containing the decapitation scene and the incidents of full frontal nudity and one without American Schlockmeister Russ Meyer.

 

For all it’s popularity and the endorsement of Australian radio personality John Laws, critics accepted the film less than warmly, regarding it, along with the like of The Adventures of Barry McKenzie (1972), as something of a cultural embarrassment, to be swept under the carpet. The Alvin Purples, the Barry McKenzie’s, the Stones. These are the forgotten parts of Australian film history, lacking the presentability of the films of Peter Weir or Baz Lurhman, but an important part none the less and one that perhaps should be acknowledged. It must be realized that, while the films themselves may not be particularly ‘important’ films, they are still /important/ films, Australia’s filmic underground and, in Stone’s case the stillborn career of someone who may have been great, the early hiccups and musings of a nascent film industry that has given us what we have today and this is why they must be remembered.