The Book of Revelation

A secret he would not share.
An obsession he could not control.
A mystery he dare not resolve.

Part 1

* most of the information and the details are hyperlinked to other websites and hyperlinked to their sources, so just run your mouse over them and see!!

The Cast

Daniel Tom Long
Isabel Greta Scacchi
Mark Olsen Colin Friels
Bridget Anna Torv
Julie Deborah Mailman
Renate Zoe Coyle
Margot Nadine Garner
Bernadette Olivia Pigeot
Sally Ana Maria Belo
Deborah Sibylla Budd
Barmaid Genevieve Picot
Vivian Nina Liu
James Brian Lipson
Justin Gavin Webber
Paul Shaun Parker
Shop keeper Damien Fotiou
Charging officer Marty Fields
Policemen Ken Radley
Anthony Wallace
Doctor Robert Morgan
Street Performer Matt Wilson
The Women
Gertude Anna Torv
Astrid Zoe Naylor
Maude Odette Joannidis

The Crew

Director Ana Kokkinos

Based on the novel by Rupert Thomson

Screen play Andrew Bovell
Ana Kokkinos

Producer Al Clark

Executive Producer Jamie Carmichael
Graham Begg

Cinematography Tristan Milani A.C.S

Original Music Cezary Skubiszewski

Costume Design Anna Borghesi

Casting Christine King

Production Designer Paul Heath

Film Editor Martin Connor

Choreographer Meryl Tankard

Production / Distribution

Release Dates

Australia 29 July 2006*
(Melbourne International Film Festival)

Iceland 31 August 2006 (Iceland International Film Festival)*

Australia 7 September 2006 *
Limited National Release

Canada 9 September 2006
(Toronto Film Festival)
International premiere in the Visions section
of the 2006 festival

U.S January 12 & 14, 2007
U.S. Premiere
Palm Springs International Festival January 4-15

Argentina 23 August 2007 *

(* source:

Also Shown at

Santa Barbara International Film Festival
January 25- February 4, 2007
Screened on January 30th, 2007 & February 3rd, 2007

IF Istanbul Film Festival
16th and 18th February 2007

Jameson Dublin International Film Festival
16th February- 25th February, 2007
Screened on the 18th February, 2007

13th annual London Australian Film Festival
15-25 March, 2007

Rome Independent Film Festival
13-19 April 2007

Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Film festival
April 19-29, 2007
On Tuesday, April 24th & Saturday, April 21st, 2007

Cannes Film Market

Cannes Festival
16-27 May, 2006 (2006 Screening Schedule)
*By Invitation only- International Premiere*
Sunday May 21st & Tuesday May 23rd

Brisbane International Film Festival
15th Brisbane International Film Festival
4 & 5 August 2006

Silver Lake Film Festival
Los Angeles
May 6, 2007 and May 7, 2007

Era New Horizons Film Festival
Wroclaw, Poland
19-29 July 2007

Duration: 117 mins

Film Genre: Drama

Duration: 117 minutes

Classification: R 18+ ‘High level sexual violence, Sexual activity’

DVD release: 24 Jan 2007

Budget: $4.5 million AUD

Box Office Figure (in Australia, to date):

$271 000 at the box office*

$271, 261 (Sourced from MPDAA) **

$275, 000 ^

* (NB: Source: Palace Films)
** (NB: Source: Australian Film Commission)
^(NB: Source: Wildheart Zizani Pty Ltd)

International sales: 24 territories. Over US$1m in international sales.**

International release (from 2007 onwards): Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Eastern Europe, Greece, Hong Kong, Macau, Iceland, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland), Singapore, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, Venezuela. **

(** NB: Source: WildHeart Zizani Pty Ltd [The Film’s Production Company])

DVD/Cable television income: not yet known**

** (NB: Source: Wildheart Zizani Pty Ltd [The Film’s Production Company])

General Interest facts:

-opened on 20 prints*

-2670 units were shipped into Rental DVD*

* (NB: Source: Palace Films)


Cinematographers Gold Tristan Milani (NSW)
Society 2006

Film Critics Circle Best Music Score Cezary Skubiszewski
of Australia Awards

Awards Nominations


Film Critics Circle Best Actor in a Supporting Role Colin Friels
of Australia Awards
2006 Best Cinematography Tristan Milani

Best Editing Martin Connor

Best Screenplay Adapted Andrew Bovell

Best Music Score Cezary Skubiszewski

Australian Film Best Original Music Score Cezary Skubiszewski
2006 Best Screenplay – Adapted Ana Kokkinos
Andrew Bovell

Best Costume Design Anna Borghesi

Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards – Best Music Score Cezary Skubiszewski

Online Presence:

First and foremost, beware when looking up this movie in anything, when you use search engines. Prepare to spend hours if you are really after information on this movie.

Having the same name as an important part of the Bible, it means that the researcher of this film gets to trawl through Bible and Religion/ Catholicism/ Christianity articles and sites and search results to get anywhere, because they share the same names.

Even if you specify the words and titles with which you search, it’s a very tiresome and frustrating task. I tried all sorts of combinations; with the same poor results- it was impossible to avoid them.

There is a fair amount of reviews, info snap shots and articles on the film on the internet; but to even get to those you really have to trawl through the search results.

For real information (other than reviews) I had to contact the AFC, FFC and Wildheart Zizani Pty Ltd (its production companies) and Palace Films (its distribution company) for substantial facts and figures, because there is not a wealth of real information on this movie readily available anywhere else.

Official site:

General Information Internet Sites:

Ana Kokkinos

‘Ana Kokkinos’s Revelations’ with Ana Kokkinos*

Interviewed by Luke Buckmaster
In Film Australia
September 2006

‘The Revelation of Reversal’ with Ana Kokkinos *

Interviewed by Andrew L. Urban
Urban Cinefile
August 31, 2006
(via the MED231 site) @

‘Ana Kokkinos talking about her new film
The Book of Revelation’

Film Buffs Podcast - Westgarth OB
Posted on Wednesday 13 September 2006
2nd September, 2006

Ana Kokkinos(Director) &
Rupert Thomson(Author of Original Novel)

Ana Kokkinos & Rupert Thomson

The Movie Show Online
Podcast & Interview

Ana Kokkinos & Rupert Thomson*

Interviewed by Will Temple
15 September, 2006
@,23614,5007143-5007141,00.html >

Tom Long (Lead Actor, Daniel)

Tom Long Interview *

Interview by Sean Lynch
Web Wombat

* Very Interesting Interviews!!

Bibliography of reviews


Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton
At the Movies
6September 2006

Jonathan Dawson
ABC Tasmania
29th September 2006

Gavin Bond
In film Australia

Andrea Distefano

Mark Beirne

Nigel Randall
The Adelaide Review (features an interview with Kokkinos as well)

Fiona Prior
17th September, 2006
Henry Thornton

Stuart Wilson and Mark Lavercombe
1st August 2006

Andrea Buck
Cinephilia- Australian Film & More

Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy)

Mathieu Ravier
Last Night with Riviera
Saturday, July 15, 2006

‘Chained Melody ‘
Time Magazine (Online)
Sunday, Sep. 03, 2006

Other Reviews

"Brilliant...Exciting...Heartrending...stands at the forefront of new Australian films." Tom Ryan, The Sunday Age

"It remains, from first to last, compelling and involving." Phillipa Hawker, The Age.

"Courageous...daring." Andiee Paviour, Who Weekly.

"A landmark of Australian cinema." Jill Singer, Herald Sun.

Palace Films

General Interest Online Articles

That’s a summary of all the resources I found on the internet.
I didn’t find anything on the movie in critical essays in journals or discussions in books, though I did search on Google Scholar and on the Murdoch University Library journal database.
These were the articles I could find; maybe because the film was only released last year.

Part 2

Film Discussion
Critical review of the film
Discussion of the critical uptake of the film
The circumstances of its production and release and its box office
The film and the subsequent or prior work of the director, the cinematographer, writer/s, lead actors and producer
The film and the general position and value of Australian film
The film and Australian cinema genres

Critical review of the film

(plot, synopsis)

Plot: Basically this film is about a lead dancer who goes missing for 12 days, while out buying cigarettes for his girlfriend, and his disappearance leaves his girlfriend and mentor/friend completely mystified. When he does re-surface he is a broken, wounded, tortured man who can not re-assume he is old life and move on because he is so haunted and tormented by the painful memories of what happened to him. Unable to relate to the people around him, he begins to search for answers, abandoning his old life and all the people in it, to go and search for answers. He retraces his steps and uses the ambient noises he heard as clues, and as he does this, it is gradually it is revealed that he was abducted by three hooded and masked women who kept him bound and chained and systematically sexually abused and assaulted during the course of those 12 days. He also uses the clues he saw on the women like tattoos, hair and birthmarks to try and track down the three women, and because of this he becomes very suspicious of all Caucasian women. He gradually becomes so consumed with finding the three women that did this to him, that he gradually becomes a sexual predator himself; risking everything including his newly found relationship with Julie (a young lady he meets on a train one evening) in his obsessive pursuit."

Synopsis: Daniel (Tom Long) is a talented, handsome and charismatic contemporary dancer who is in his physical and artistic prime and at the height of his fame. However he goes missing on the afternoon before the premiere of the company he’s in’s new show, after failing to return when he goes to get some cigarettes for his girlfriend, Bridget (Anna Torv) which leaves everyone closest to him completely mystified and startled. Isabel (Greta Scacchi), who is his closest friend and mentor and also the head choreographer of the troupe, starts to get so worried by this that she enlists the help of her former husband, Mark Olsen (Colin Friels), who is a cop, to track him down. Even though his efforts fail to track down Daniel, Daniel resurfaces 12 says later - when he is thrown out of a moving van with a pillow case over his head a wounded, scared, empty shell of his former self. He tries going back to his old life, picking up where he left off - but he finds he can’t because he is still completely haunted and tormented by whatever happened to him during those 12 days. Still too hurt and delicate, he finds he is unable to talk to those around him about what happened to him during those 12 days. Gradually he begins to start tracing his steps leading up to his disappearance - past the same store, down the alley - re-tracing his steps; it’s in this process that we see he was abducted by three hooded women who were waiting in the alley for him. He tries to report it to the police, but it’s so painful to talk about that he has to say 'his male friend', because the wounds are too fresh. But all that is met with is 'poor bastard' and laughter from the policemen that are taking his statement and he snaps when he finds there is no one he can talk to about it. He becomes so tormented and so frustrated by these memories, that he abandons not only his old life and the people in it, but his art that he loved so much, in order to find out what happened to him because he just can’t move on and get over it until he does. He starts using the only clues he has to find answers - going back to the site he was dumped at then working back from there using the ambient noises he heard during his captivity. This leads him to a port district where he takes a job at a hotel as a bartender and he moves into a hovel above it. Gradually, in this process of recalling all the things he heard, he begins to dredge up the painful memories of what happened to him during those 12 days and we see the sexual abuse, humiliation and torture he was forced to endure at the hands of these three women. Chained and bound to the floor he was at these mysterious women’s disposal and their abuse and their sadistic exploitation of him and his body. They systematically abused him and broke him down through mental, physical and sexual torture - humiliating and shaming him under the guise of satisfying their own pleasures. Slowly he recalls details about these women and he uses those clues to try and track them down with. Unable to move on with his life until he does, his search becomes an obsession and he becomes suspicious of all (young, Caucasian) women, that he encounters, who even vaguely resemble them in some way. Eventually he gets so consumed by this that he starts developing very predatory behaviours in his quest to find these women; actively pursuing them (his suspects) and stalking them during the night. Meanwhile his former friend and mentor still doesn’t believe he’s ok and will not her prized dancer go, so she asks her former husband to find him. He eventually finds the hotel he’s now working at and begins talking to him - not yet introducing himself. He tactfully and strategically uses the topic of dance and how his is an ex-wife ex-dancer/ choreographer (without explicitly naming anyone), to communicate to Daniel in a gentle and cautious way to get him to open up."
Synopsis: continued They eventually strike up a friendship while Daniel is still by night busy searching through women; leaving a trail of one night stands, back alley liaisons and moonlight rendezvous, as he tries to figure it out for himself. He gets a small wake up call when Mark eventually he tells him that Isabel is very sick. This makes him realise he has been neglecting her when he shouldn’t have been, so he goes back and visits her. But what really has an impact on him is when a young aboriginal lady named Julie reaches out to him one night on a tram. Julie (Deborah Mailman) is a kind, open young woman also scarred by past. In her he finds a warm, gentle, compassionate, caring spirit with whom he instantly bonds with (because she in no way resembles even one of his captors; she is of different skin colour and physical shape as well - so he doesn’t suspect her of being one of them ). After that they begin a relationship that flowers into something real - real honesty and real emotion, and he abandons his quest in favour of spending time with her, rather than being stuck in the past. From her positive influence, he starts to heal and re-build himself, so much so he finds he can begin to get his life back on track. He starts making real, positive steps to reclaiming some sense of his former self and beings to smile again; no longer the scared, gaunt creature around her. Interestingly enough, Mark and Isabel start rekindling their relationship as well."

Discussion of the Critical uptake of the film

Prior to its release one writer said, when describing the film, 'the film is a hot stove of taboo topics designed to get audiences thinking about deep and dark issues' and anticipated that it will get people talking. A prediction Robin Usher also made in their article about the film, prior to its release, saying that 'The Book of Revelation will inevitably create a storm' [16] and:

'Ana Kokkinos [sic] knows that her new film, The Book of Revelation, will create controversy but insists that is irrelevant to her main purpose of getting people to think.' [16]

Interestingly though (when looking at the reviews from all the different critics and reviewers) while critics and reviewers talk about the issues in the film, the critical uptake of the film, has not been focused on the discussion of them; it’s mainly focused on critiquing the various aspects of the actual film. Fiona Prior’s article/review in Henry is the only one that seems to start thinking about this issue/ act in the way that they anticipated. Given time maybe there will be some articles published on male rape and male victims of rape, from this film (especially as it is only just now really entering the overseas market), but for now the critics are just talking about it alongside the acting and the film making as well.

There was one prediction that did come to fruition however. It was made in the summary section of
the production notes [1]:

'The filmmakers all acknowledge that The Book of Revelation is likely to divide audiences. The issues it raises are confronting and have no easy conclusions. Director Ana Kokkinos is sure that people will leave the film with questions running through their minds and she fully expects men and women will respond differently because of the reversal in the story; women as perpetrators, the man as victim' [1]

Ana Kokkinos, in an interview with Andrew L. Urban [15], said this as well 'We expect people to be divided, to be unsure how to react ….' [15] An expectation Tom Long in his interview with Sean Lynch, for WebWombat [14], anticipated as well:

'Look, I think it'll really divide audiences. I think you can’t help but think about it and talk about it even if you hate it. But I don’t think hating it or loving it is the thing, so much as what people think and if they talk about it.' [14]

It did divide audiences- not as they had expected; it divided their own opinions. It might have got them thinking and talking about it, but for most it just led to a very mixed response. You can see these mixed feelings about the film in the mixed comments of the critics who had seen it. It’s sad because it is not one of those films where you could say - it might have not been a box office success, but at least it was a critical success. The very mixed nature of the response rules that out because it wasn’t universally loved by critics; critics were divided in their own feelings and opinions regarding this movie.

After seeing it, most gave it between 3-4 stars (out of 5 stars assumingly), but it was in their comments that we see their very mixed feelings towards the film. This is interesting when it dealt with such strong and different subject material, you’d think it would provoke a strong, definite reaction either way; either completely loving it or hating it. This is typical of critics though, one would love something while another would hate the thing that the other critic, in another review, liked; or one would see that thing as being a positive thing, but another would see it as a negative thing (That’s why I don’t bother with critic’s typings mostly; see it for your own self if you want to see it and make your own mind up about a film).

The reviews of Tom Long’s performance demonstrate the duality present in many comments about this film. Though it attracted plenty of great reviews or comments like, for instance, from Greg Bork, of Empire Online, said 'his fine performance is very brave'[3]; Stuart Wilson, of, also said 'The film features a fantastic performance by Long '[17] and Mark Beirne, from Your Movies, reiterated this as well when he said:

'Tom Long must be commended on an incredibly brave performance; the sex scenes are explicit and confronting, and his character goes to some very dark places emotionally.' [2]

Chris Lynch, of Media-Culture Org, also said 'Tom Long's wonderful portrayal of wounded-animal masculinity to evoke sympathy for him.' [13] These reviews are typical of the critics that liked his performance, but many did not like it, it seemed.

On the flipside though, his performance also attracted plenty of negative comments. Critics like Colin Fraser, of Movie Review, said 'Long is uncharismatic' [10], Sandra Hall, of The Sydney Morning Herald, said:

'There’s no doubting the merits of this ambitious adaptation because of its multi-layered plotting and daring treatment of sexual taboos but this flick lacks resonance due to Tom Long’s physically brave but emotively drab performance.' [12]

Jennifer Fallon said something similar:

'I put it down to Tom Long, himself, whose morose and broody persona prior to the attack, was pretty much the same morose and broody persona we got after it. Although buffed and toned to within an inch of his life, with a body fat percentage of about 2.5, I have to say, if was going to go to the trouble of kidnapping a bloke off the streets so I and a couple of gal-pals could have our wicked way with him, it would be someone with a tad more charisma.' [8]

Russell Edwards, of, said:

'Inevitably, the film's burden falls upon thesp Tom Long ("Risk," "The Dish"). A limited actor whose lethargic presence serves the post-abduction scenes well, Long lacks the vitality in the opening reels to a basis for a character arc. Still, even the pivotal weakness of Long's dull persona can't undermine the pic's determination to confront auds intellectually and emotionally.' [7]

When some saw his performance as wonderful or brave or fantastic, others saw it as lethargic, morose and emotionally drab performance. It’s mixed and conflicting, lacking any consensus. Critics interpreted it differently and responded to it differently.

It goes on and on like that for every aspect of the movie - from Kokkinos’s direction to the set design and the use of Melbourne as the film’s setting; Long’s prediction was definitely fulfilled because this film did divide and challenge audiences, this is more than apparent in the divided nature of the critical response. She even divided the critics. It is not even strictly polarization that occurred because many critics were mixed in their own opinions. There was something they liked about the film; but there were things that they didn’t as well. It’s not one camp of critics liking it and the other hating it. It was like ‘I like this, but I don’t like that’ time and time again when you read them (this is typical behaviour of critics anyway).

The 3 star average rating reflected this - they liked it, but they had mixed feelings about it which meant it couldn’t score any higher as the negative aspects detracted from its rating. Other criticisms included the 'unnaturalistic' nature of the dialogue which causes a sense of detachment amongst the audience, like Stuart Wilson, of Hoopla. net [17], points out; the director’s use of theatricality as Andrea Buck highlights [4] and the 'pretentious, plodding drama' [3] nature of the film as Gavin Bond, of In Film Australia, points out [3]. But while he makes these comments Sandra Hall, of The Sydney Morning Herald,said 'Kokkinos has a formidable talent for the heightened sensation' [12] - one liked the plodding, interpreting them as instances of heightened sensation- while another saw it as plodding.

However most sung nothing but praise for the member’s supporting cast. Like, for instance, Ian Gould, of the Sydney Star Observer, he said the film 'feature strong Australian support casts' [11] and Andrea Buck, of Cinephilia, says 'we are given some good performances from the likes of Colin Friels' [4] and Colin Fraser, of Movie Review, says 'while Friels, surprisingly, brings the story’s only light'. [10]

Annie Fox, of Life Lounge, said:

'Overall however, there are several moments of this film so brilliant they make Revelation unmissable. Scacchi’s performance as Daniel’s mentor, Isabel is one such unmissable treat.' [9]

Russell Edwards, of, said:
'Fine supporting cast negotiates some tricky turns: Friels offers a strong perf as the detective, and Deborah Mailman shines as the sweetly vulnerable Julie, who offers Daniel a shot at redemption in the pic's closing reels.' [7]

Jonathan Dawson, of ABC Tasmania, who for the most did not like the movie, said this about them:

'There are some saving graces of course: Colin Friels is excellent as the retired cop married to a ballet maven, played by Greta Scacchi. Their screen time together, along with a couple of pub scenes, is a still centre of sanity in a whirlwind of tosh.' [6]

Most critics seemed to hold the supporting cast in definite esteem, because they seemed to come to a positive consensus about their performance.


[1] Author unknown. 'The Book of Revelation.' Production Notes.
book-of-revelation-production-notes.rtf (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[2] Beirne, Mark. 'Dirty Dancing' The Book of Revelation., date unknown. =movie_info&title_id=23191 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[3] Bond, Gavin. 'The Book of Revelation Movie Review'. In film Australia, date unknown. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[3] Bork, Greg. 'The Book of Revelation'. Empire Australia Reviews Central, date unknown. DVDID=1000000154 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[4] Buck, Andrea. 'Australiana' The Book of Revelation. Cinephilia- Australian Film & More, date unknown. show_detailed_review.php?movieid=3223&link=australia (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[5] Buckmaster, Luke (interviewer). ‘Ana Kokkinos’s Revelations’. In Film Australia, September 2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[6] Dawson, Jonathan. 'The Book of Revelation' Film Review. ABC Tasmania, 29th September 2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[7] Edwards, Russell. 'V Film' The Book of Revelation. Variety Film, Jul. 31, 2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[8] Fallon, Jennifer. 'Movie Reviews' The Book of Revelation. Jennifer Fallon: The Official Site, 13 September 2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[9] Fox, Annie. 'The Book of Revelation' Art Feature. Life Lounge, date unknown.
content/detail.aspx?id=1075 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[10] Fraser, Colin. 'The Book of Revelation'. Movie Review, date unknown. (accessed 18th April, 2007).
[11] Gould, Ian. ‘POWERFUL REVELATIONS’. Sydney Star Observer, Published 31 August, 2006. 18th April, 2007).

[12] Hall, Sandra. 'The Book of Revelation'. The Sydney Morning Herald, September 9, 2006. revelation/2006/09/08/1157222308067.html
(accessed 18th April, 2007).

[13] Lynch, Chris. 'Book of Revelation - A Dark Sexual Odyssey'. Media, 09 September 2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[14]Lynch, Sean (Interviewer). 'Interview with Tom Long'. Web Wombat, date unknown. tom-long-int-revelations.htm (accessed 18th
April, 2007).

[15] Urban, Andrew L. 'The Revelation of Reversal' Urban Cinefile Feature. Urban Cinefile, August 31, 2006. (accessed through the site) (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[16] Usher, Robin. 'A revelation and not by the book.' The Age, July 29, 2006.
news/film/a-revelation-and-not-by-the- book/2006/07/27/1153816322188.html?page=fullpage#
contentSwap2 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[17] Wilson, Stuart. 'The Book of Revelation'. Hoopla.Nu, 1 August 2006.
bookofrevelation/bookofrevelation.html (accessed 18th April, 2007).

The circumstances of its production

The production notes [3] provide a valuable insight into the circumstances of its production better and more comprehensively than I can articulate here.

Click here to view them

From the Book:

This movie is based on the novel by UK author Rupert Thomson of the same name that was published by
Bloomsbury Publishing about a ballet dancer living in Amsterdam with his French girlfriend Bridgette, is who abducted and held prisoner by three women.

Kokkinos first read Thomson's book back in 1999, shortly after it came out, and had to beat off strong
international interests to win the rights to adapt it and to secure the rights for the film:

'The New York Times hailed Thomson’s novel as a masterpiece when it was published in 1999 and he was soon inundated with film offers from all over the world. But after meeting with filmmaker Ana Kokkinos he was convinced that she was the right person - the only person - who could transform his extraordinary book into film.' [4]

One of was 'from Woody Allen's previous producer, Jean Doumanian.' [6] The production notes articulate
this a bit better:

'Despite the intense international competition, Thomson had admired Kokkinos' first feature Head On and after a four-page letter, several phone conversations and a meeting with the author at an Australian writers' festival, he was convinced that his novel was safe in her hands and that of producer, Al Clark. Says Clark, "He could see in us an absolute determination to make the film rather than, as had become customary for him, to go into development forever." The Book of Revelation is the first of Thomson's novels to be released as a film.' [3]

Kokkinos also said in the article ‘A revelation and not by the book’ by Robin Usher [6]:

"His previous five novels were all optioned (by film producers) but nothing happened," she says. "This time he wanted the rights to go to a real filmmaker, because he knows his work is demanding and difficult to adapt." [6]

So it was a long process, but the Australian team of Ana Kokkinos, Bovell and Al Clark finally got their story.

To the funding:

On July 22, 2004 the FFC announced that:

'The Film Finance Corporation Australia (FFC) has identified The Book of Revelation and Jindabyne as the first two projects to be selected under its new system of feature film Evaluation.' [1]

It became the first of the two films coming through the newly restructured FFC evaluation system, financed through the evaluation door, as outlined in section 3.2 of the feature film investment guidelines [2]. This door determines a project’s merit in three key areas of creative potential, market potential and audience potential.

This makes its production circumstances quite interesting because of this significance; being one of 'The first wave of films under the controversial new funding system introduced by the corporation, chosen on their creative merits rather than the financing deal, are included in the slate.' [5]

And the filming:

The film was shot on location in Melbourne, over a seven-week period in March/April 2005, using 42 different locations [3]. Anna Torv and Tom Long had to spend three months training with Meryl tankard (the film’s choreographer) and her associates before the filming commenced to prepare for their roles as Bridget and Daniel in the movie [3].


[1] Author unknown. 'Funding Approvals- July 2004' Two features get the tick in FFC Evaluation. FFC Australia, 22 July 2004. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[2] Author unknown. 'Investment Guidelines.' Feature Films. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[3] Author unknown. 'The Book of Revelation.' Production Notes.
images/book-of-revelation-production-notes.rtf (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[4] Author unknown. 'Talking Pictures: The Book of Revelation + Q&A (WA)'. In Film, 21/8/2006. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[5] Maddox, Garry. 'Playing to tough audiences'. The Age, August 15, 2005. audiences/2005/08/14/1123957943720.html (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[6] Usher, Robin. 'A revelation and not by the book.' The Age, July 29, 2006. 1153816322188.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

The work of the Cast & Crew
and the Film

This film brings together a very experienced cast and crew who have been working in their respective industries for years. The Book of Revelation is just one production in a very extensive list of previous work for all those who were involved.

Although this is only Kokkinos’s second feature film after Head On, with an 8 year gap in between them; she spent those 8 years working in TV (on shows like The Secret Life of Us [2003], Young Lions [2002] and on one episode of Eugienie Sandler P.I [2000]); in Documentary (The Original Mermaid, 2002) and short film (Only the Brave, 1994) as a director. She’s also co-written the screenplays for The Book of Revelation (2006), The Original Mermaid (2002), Head On (1998) and Only the Brave (1994).

Andrew Bovell, who co-wrote the screenplay with Kokkinos, co-wrote Head On (1998) with her as well. He also wrote the screenplay for the movies Lantana (2001) and Strictly Ballroom (1992); he’s also written for TV shows like Dogwoman: The Legend of Dogwoman (2000) and the Lust segment of the Seven Deadly Sins (1993)mini-tv series.

Al Clark who produced The Book of Revelation,has also produced the films Siam Sunset (1999), Heaven's Burning (1997), The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert(1994). He has also been an executive producer for Razzle Dazzle: A Journey Into Dance (2007), Thunderstruck (2004), The Hard Word (2002), Chopper (2000) and The Crossing (1990) and has co-produced films like Eye of the Beholder(1999) and Nineteen Eighty-Four(1984).

Tristan Milani (cinematography) previous work as a cinematographer includes the film’s Three Dollars(2005), Travelling Light (2003), The Bank(2001), The Boys(1998) and the film Ten Empty (2007) which is in post-production.

Cezary Skubiszewski (music) has composed the music for films like Hating Alison Ashley (2005), The Rage in Placid Lake(2003), Black and White (2002), La Spagnola (2001), Bootmen (2000), Sensitive New-Age Killer (2000), The Wog Boy (2000) After the Rain (2000) and Two Hands (1999) and has worked on TV series like The Society Murders (2006), The Brush-Off (2004), After the Deluge (2003), Short Cuts (2002), Halifax f.p: The Scorpion's Kiss (2001), Eugenie Sandler P.I.(2000), Sweat (1996) and the film Night (2007) which is post-production.

Anna Borghesi (costumes) past film work includes Love's Brother (2004), Ned Kelly (2003), Darkness Falls(2003), Mr. Accident(2000) Pitch Black (2000), Head On (1998), The Well (1997), Love Serenade (1996), Metal Skin (1994), Lucky Break (1994) and Romper Stomper (1992) and she’s also worked on the TV series The Outsider (2002), Child Star: The Shirley Temple Story(2001), On the Beach(2000) and SeaChange (1998). Her new film work includes a film called The Condemned (2007).

Tom Long (Daniel) has worked both in feature films and on TV. With roles in TV productions like Joanne Lees: Murder in the Outback (2007), BlackJack: At the Gates(2006), in the ‘Call Back’ episode of the "Two Twisted" series (2006), The Postcard Bandit(2003), Young Lions (2002), Heroes' Mountain (2002), SeaChange (1998-1999), Echo Point(1995) and been in films like Hildegarde (2001), The Dish(2000), Risk (2000), Strange Planet (1999), Two Hands (1999) and Doing Time for Patsy Cline (1997).

Greta Scacchi (Isabel Auster) has worked both in feature films and on TV. Her past films include The Handyman (2006), Icicle Melt(2006), Flightplan(2005), Beyond the Sea (2004), Baltic Storm (2003), Looking for Alibrandi(2000), The Manor (1999), The Serpent's Kiss (1997), Emma (1996), The Player (1992), Turtle Beach (1992), Presumed Innocent(1990), Dead on Time (1983), Burke & Wills (1985) and her past TV production work includes roles in Nightmares and Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King (2006), Broken Trail(2006), ‘Heart Attack’ episode of the "Two Twisted" series (2006), Jeffrey Archer: The Truth (2002), Daniel Deronda(2002), The Farm(2001), Macbeth(1998), The Odyssey(1997) and Dr. Fischer of Geneva(1985).

Colin Friels (Mark Olsen) has also worked in both in feature films and on TV. His past TV work includes roles in BlackJack (2003-2007), The Mystery of Natalie Wood (2004), My Husband My Killer (2001), Child Star: The Shirley Temple Story (2001), The Farm (2001), Water Rats (1996-1999), Space: Above and Beyond (1995), The Last Man Hanged (1992), For the Term of His Natural Life (1983) and Big Toys (1980). His past film work includes Solo (2006), The Illustrated Family Doctor(2005), Tom White (2004), Max's Dreaming(2003), Black and White (2002), The Man Who Sued God (2001), Dark City (1998), Cosi(1996), Mr. Reliable (1996), Angel Baby (1995), The Nostradamus Kid (1993), Dingo(1991), Ground Zero (1987), Malcolm(1986), Monkey Grip(1982) and Hoodwink (1981).


So, as you can see from that extensive list, everyone who worked on or acted in The Book of Revelations, has been working in film and television for years. You could see how it aced the creative potential aspect of its funding evaluation with the FFC, with a creative team having such an extensive track record like they have, and a proposed cast as experienced as these cast members are.

The film
and Australian film

From its uptake and market horizons, this poor little film is a perfect example of why the Australian film industry is suffering and failing like it is. It perfectly demonstrates the contemporary position of our film industry, its market horizons and its value within our society. Interestingly enough, so does Miranda Devine in her article ‘Cinemagoers give it a miss as film industry loses plot’ [4] because she uses this film to discuss why our film industry is suffering and losing audiences:

'He cites Ana Kokkinos's sadistic film, The Book Of Revelation, which sank without trace in September, as an example of the sort of movie favoured by the government-funded Film Finance Corporation.

Lauded as a "feminist project" it is the story of a white male kidnapped by three masked women who rape, torture, and sexually humiliate him for 12 days.

So few people actually paid to see it that it doesn't even register with online movie industry bible Box Office Mojo. Is the FFC desperate to lose money?

"The Book Of Revelation ticked all the boxes," says my friend. "It's anti-white male and a feminist empowerment film. If you brought in a script about ethnic lesbians in wheelchairs it would get funded in two seconds."

Box office receipts for Australian movies plunged to an all-time low in 2004, to 1.3 per cent of total box office, down from almost 10 per cent a decade ago. They have only recovered slightly since, with the help of Kenny.' [4]

This poor little film, even with such an experienced cast and crew like theirs, was not a real financial or critical success. It’s well made and well acted, based on a well written story, dealing with interesting issues, but it just didn’t succeed; the public did not go and see it and it was not a huge critical success. Because of this it serves as a kind of poster child or metaphor for the state in which our national cinematic industry finds itself in- making film products that mainstream Australian audiences do not want to see, that don’t return profits; even if they have some social or cultural good.

Generally, our national cinematic products have to be relegated to an art film-like (non-mainstream) status in its own country- showing alongside the weird Bollywood and European films at the Luna (not in more mainstream cinemas like Greater Union or Hoyts), because it is so out of touch with the contemporary Australian mainstream audiences. Even Garry Maddox, of The Age, proposes that: 'Australian films should mostly be considered art-house releases these days' [7]. For limited release (not a general {in cinemas everywhere} release) in particular types of cinemas; for a niche market of film buffs and the film literate who are interested in the arts; made for grand social and cultural purposes in line with the nationalistic visions of the patronage bodies.

Here we see films whose only value is as an art film; a piece of art to present a comment on a social issue in a way that challenges and confronts people. It only has the cultural value that a piece of art does; it doesn’t have any entertainment value. Because after all: 'As Steve Neale has put it: 'art is thus the space in which an indigenous cinema can develop and make its critical and economic mark'' [8]. Looking at this film and the other ones that were released in 2006 like Candy, Jindabyne, 2:37, 48 Shades, Last Train to Freo, Macbeth, and Irresistible [1]they are all socially concerned pieces, out to make a comment on some social issue (like a piece of contemporary art does); this approach alienates mainstream contemporary audiences, who go to cinemas to be entertained as the box office figures indicate. They are not out to purely entertain (as in being a film that is enjoyable and amuses audiences), but to educate and enlighten (with entertainment taking on a secondary role to education and enlightenment). Like Mark Beirne, of yourMovies, says:

'But "The Book of Revelation" isn't a film to be enjoyed. Production designer Paul Heath's stark set design, interspersed with harsh splashes of colour, and composer Cezary Skubiszewski's loud, intrusive score make this an uncomfortable experience. Tristan Milani's cinematography occasionally borders on art student pomposity.' [2]

These films, and the team behind them, don’t care about making it comfortable or entertaining for audiences; they solely focused on the film’s aesthetics and their own artistic vision and making statements. As Mark Beirne, of yourMovies, says: 'Unfortunately, the bizarre premise and confronting imagery are likely to deter mainstream audiences, and the film's box office chances look grim.' [2] It’s all about them (the creative team behind the film) and their vision and the statements they want to make, not about attracting an audience.

The Book of Revelations also displays the same market horizons as most contemporary Australian films; being a cultural object, made for critical discourse and made for a particular mode of consumption. It ended up being shown in only in specialist venues across the country (like the Luna cinema, because of the cinema’s ties with the Palace distribution company) and in international film festivals; its world premiere was via a film festival and its international release/premiere’s was done via international film festivals overseas as well (ie: overseas premiere: Canada: Toronto Film Festival ; US premiere: Palm Springs International Festival ). Like Russell Edwards, in his review of The Book of Revelation[5], of said:

'Oz arthouse auds will line up, and international fest berths are assured. Controversy at prominent fests may help the pic leapfrog to international niche release.' [5]

He was right.

This is typical of most contemporary Australian films that share the same market horizons as art films
and to have market horizons which are typical of art films, being:

'an institution in which certain films are 'assigned a position within the general film culture and are defined in terms of a particular mode of consumption'. As mentioned above, key components of this institution are film festivals, critical discourses and specialist distributors and exhibitors………….fundamental unifying feature of the 'art' film genre is this special circulatory network that

serves to confirm the distinction between its minority audience and the mass audience of the commercial mainstream cinema' [8]

These films are made with the intention of being marketable overseas and distributed and exhibited via film festivals, not via main stream cinemas for mainstream audiences. If we look at the list of films released in 2006 (films like Kokoda, Candy, The Caterpillar Wish, Ten Canoes, Solo, Jindabyne, 2:37, Last Train to Freo and Macbeth) [1] most either ended up being shown in festivals in Australia and internationally, and most ended up being mainly screened in specialist exhibitors like the Luna Cinema here in Perth; producing an entire film industry defined by a particular mode of consumption, characterised by the key components of the art film institution.

Because of their confronting and challenging nature, that is the only possible avenue or context for films like these to be properly viewed in and regarded in. Films about teenage suicide (2:37), male rape and torture (B.O.R), Shakespeare done in the Melbourne underworld gangland (Macbeth), retiring stand-over men(Solo), junkie lovers (Candy) are not made for a mainstream audience consumption (which is commercialised in nature). I liked the film (and I like the Luna cinema- killer lolly bags & really comfy seats), but how can a film about male rape and torture, done with such a stylised treatment, be for anyone but the art’s crowd? In taking this controversial and challenging approach they’ve instantly alienated a whole section of their market (which is pretty stupid because they are relying on the public for their revenue and profits); when the majority of people are going to the cinema to be entertained as the success of Wolf Creek, Happy Feet, etc, show [1].

What teenager really would go and see a film about teen suicide? Who but older, art lovers could sit through a film predominately focused on male rape and torture? Who would sit through a film about junkie, bohemian poets getting their girlfriends hooked on junk? These films are not being made for mainstream audiences who obviously prefer the likes of Wolf Creek (2005) , Happy Feet (2006), Kenny (2006), Strictly Ballroom (1992) (as indicate by their box office success) [1]. A national cinema should be being made for mainstream audiences, not a minority, art and film buff audience.

This movie is typical of the sorts of films the Australian industry is producing in another way; it shows the aesthetic and thematic stagnation our industry has become characterised by, as Dermody and Jacka [3] say:
‘we find blandness, staleness and repetition on the cultural and aesthetic level; on the political level (how the industry responds to change and formulates its will and personality), blandness, staleness and paralysis also reign, even if all the talk is of struggle and opposition. [3] ’

and the ‘aesthetic stagnation’ [3] has become increasingly difficult to ignore in contemporary Australian cinema. Most of the films bear some similarity to the other ones being made and released; they are defined by the similar settings (urban or suburban settings etc), characters (emotionally damaged, imperfectly ‘real’ etc character types), story lines, themes and a sense of social concern. This is because the industry and the productions are trapped within, and restricted to, the patronage bodies’ (and their nature of their nationalist rhetoric’s) definition of ‘acceptable’ and ‘worthy’ and the social and cultural objectives films have to have, to be funded by them.

The few films that display any diversity or variance go on to be big hits at the cinema, like Wolf Creek ($5.8 million in 2005 [1]), Happy Feet ($11.1m in 2006 [1]), Kenny ($7.6 m in 2006 [1]), Strictly Ballroom ($21.8 million in 1992 [6]); these films earnt much more than the more typical Australian films like Jindabyne ($5.3 mil in 2006[1]), Ten Canoes ($3.3million in 2006 [1]), Little Fish ($3.7 mil in 2005 [1]), Look Both Ways ($2.8million in 2005 [1]) and The Oyster Farmer ($2.4 million in 2005 [1]). This shows that Australians are tired of the products our industry seems to be producing, because there is very little real diversity amongst them (ie: lack of generic diversity {where are the horror films? where are the fantasy films? where are comedy films like The Castle?}; thematic diversity {because every second film seems to be dealing with some social problem or another} and stylistic diversity{most being stuck in a social realist style realism}); the ones that offer something really different go on to be quite successful.

It’s not a bad film; but it is the product of a very ill and misguided contemporary industry, the cause of which is a very complex and contentious issue. I have chosen not to go into that because that would be another essay and a half for me to adequately discuss, it would require history lessons and all that as well.

SP’s disclaimer:

Please do not get the idea that I don’t like Australian films, or that I am anti-Australian films. I am not; our films are great quality, with great actors and creative talent behind the camera. I just think the industry is very ill and I think that government policy of the patronage bodies has let the industry down, because it is so out-of-date with main stream audiences and it is stuck in this social realist mode.

End Notes:

[1] (Author Unknown) 2006 BOX OFFICE BACKGROUNDER. [PDF] Australian Film Commission, 10th January, 2007. (accessed March 20, 2007). pp. 2, 8.

[2] Beirne, Mark. 'Dirty Dancing' The Book of Revelation., date unknown. (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[3] Dermody, Susan and Elizabeth Jacka. 'TheScreening of Australia: Volume 2' The Aesthetic Force Field & Epilogue: Famous Last Words. New South Wales: Currency Press, 1988. pp 39-49, 112, 179, 189, 227, 231-233.

[4] Devine, Miranda. 'Cinemagoers give it a miss as film industry loses plot'. The Sydney
Morning Herald, December 10, 2006.
a-miss-as-film-industry-loses- plot/2006/12/10/1165081195955.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
(accessed 18th April, 2007).

[5] Edwards, Russell. 'V Film' The Book of Revelation. Variety Film, Jul. 31, 2006. categoryid=31&cs=1 (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[6] Get the Picture: Australian films in all-time Top 50. Australian Film Commission, 31 December 2006. (accessed March 20, 2007).

[7] Maddox, Garry. 'Playing to tough audiences'. The Age, August 15, 2005.
film/playing-to-tough- audiences/2005/08/14/1123957943720.html (accessed 18th April, 2007).

[8] Petley, Julian. 'Art cinema' Art Cinema as an Institution in Pam Cook & Mieke Bernink eds 1999, The Cinema Book, second edition, BFI, London: pp.107-108.

The film
and Australian cinema genres

This film is so different that it is unlike any Australian film ever made before it, really (It sets a precedent for any controversial director to try and top).

Because of this, I’m really hesitant to classify it on in relation to other Australian art films because it is so different from any other that’s ever been made. No other Australian film has ventured into the grounds this film has in such a bold, challenging and confronting manner, so it would be hard to talk about it in the context of Australian films. The only other feasible approach would be looking it in terms of auteur theory; compared to Kokkinos’ previous work (looking at her body of work and other films like Head On, 1998), as a part of her work as a director- but that’s auteur theory, not genre theory.

So my approach is classifying it via the predominant characteristics and features (i.e. its semantic traits and syntactic characteristics) it displays in order to define which genre it belongs to and analyse which it belongs to the best, using the theoretical background and discussion of the genres (as outlined by the theory).

Although the video stores and the critics have classed this as drama film, I’d have to disagree (at the very least it is a hybrid drama/ art film). Though it does have dramatic elements, it shares more in common to the art film genre; I’ve already talked about it having the same market horizons and modes of consumption as an art film.

This film is predominately an art film in my opinion and that’s not just because it involves a form of art (contemporary dance) and its artists (dancers). The art film theory just read like it was describing this film- you can hold it up next to this film and they matched perfectly. The commonalities become very apparent, so that is what I will do here for you (but I will just discuss a few of the aspects of the film which make it an art film). Although it has a clear linear narrative, with a clear cause and effect structure, it is an art film in a number of respects:

First and foremost, the film is 'marked by a stress on visual style' [1] that is typically present and emphasised in art films. Every shot looks like it has been crafted and particularly composed for maximum aesthetic effect; a lot of the beauty of this film is found in Milani’s cinematography. The other elements of the mise-en- scene create this as well, from Tankard’s choreography and Heath’s set design to Borghesi’s costumes- these visual elements have been utelised to create a very distinct visual style to the film.

-'the art film tends to deal with real contemporary problems such as 'alienation' or 'lack of communication'' [1]

This film deals with both the issues alienation and lack of communication. After the abduction and his release, Daniel comes back a completely different person; so different and so changed that he no longer relate to the people around him, and is thus instantly alienated from the people closest to him. Because none of them had ever been through what he just had, so there is no way that they could understand him.

The experiences affected him so badly that he can’t just forget and move on. He finds it’s too painful for him to talk about to those around him and he just can’t talk to them about what happened, nor even properly communicate with them anymore.

His lack of communication ends up being his downfall, because he doesn’t share his pain and communicate or reach out to someone. He just bottles it up and doesn’t deal with it; and as he a result becomes so consumed by it, that it causes him to become obsessive and psychotic.
-'Often, chance and coincidence play a significant role in advancing the narrative' [1]

Chance encounters play a huge part in this film because, among many other things, it leads him to potential suspects and brings them into his path.

Chance also brings other characters into his life. That’s how he meets Julie; he meets her one night on a tram by chance, because he happens to be on the same tram and in the same carriage that she is, which leads them to meet.

It’s just a chance meeting of these two kindred spirits that sees them start a relationship and instantly connect with one another and advance the narrative nicely along.

-'many narratives are of an episodic and decidedly picaresque nature' [1]

All his sexual encounters and exploits are of an episodic and decidedly picaresque nature. In the second half of the movie we see him definitely become a picaro; the rogue, anti hero who is a victim of circumstance.

-'here, as in real life, questions remain unanswered, ends are left loose and situations unresolved' [1]

By the end of the film, Daniel never finds out the identity of his captors and tormentors, even though he has spent most of the second half of the movie searching for them: their identity still remains a mystery.

He also fails to locate the warehouse in which he was kept as well; it’s like more important things came up, so that quest was abandoned and the mystery remains.

-'relies heavily on psychological causation.' [1]

That’s the reason why he moved out of his apartment with Bridget and abandoned his old life, because the ghosts of those 12 days were still haunting and tormenting him. He was unable to move on with his life until he did; it all got too much, so he had to find out what happened to him.

The abuse he suffered at the hands of the three women, through their rape and humiliation of him, caused him to be so traumatised that it completely changed him as a person and his character. He become a completely different person to the guy he was before; he’s not the confident, assured person he was- but rather this Dr Jekyll/ Mr Hyde character who on the one hand is a fragile, fractured person, but then he just transforms into this insatiable, sexual predator.

-'The art film often tends towards the biographical or autobiographical format' [1]

It is the story of one man and his experiences, which is the sole focus of this movie/plot. The entire film is about his journey as a character, as the film follows this journey of his. The other characters are just secondary characters, because the film is about him, his emotional journey, his search and his trauma; they enter his life and change him and it is this that the film is solely focused on exploring.
- 'Narratives often revolve around characters who are undergoing some form of acute existential crisis' [1]

After being abducted and tortured, Daniel has his entire world changed. He has lost his sense of identity and has been redefined as a person from those experiences he had over that 12 day period. It’s had such a profound impact on him that it’s left him having to search for answers, because he can’t move on until he does.

-'this gives the films their peculiarly 'interior' quality, though, this being cinema, the characters' internal crises are rarely expressed through dialogue, or through dialogue alone.' [1]

This film has a highly interior quality to it; characters seem to always be silenced by their own thoughts and feelings, with the bulk of their real personalities hidden by that silence. So much so that one gets the distinct impression that they are living in their own universe, trapped in their own heads.

With its deliberately sparse, controlled and unnaturalistic dialogue, the character’s various internal crises are never communicated; a lot remains unsaid and thoughts go unexpressed and the action and emotion is internalised. The only things that communicates anything this is their reticence of language and their physical expressions (through gesture and facial expression), with lots of close ups on silent faces, consumed by their own thoughts and feelings..

-'offers the viewers an enigma or a riddle that besets their character' [1]

In this movie there are some very puzzling riddles and enigmas that beset Daniel.

His experiences during those 12 says leaves him with the puzzle of these three women’s identities; because during his abduction they hid their faces and identities from him and he was drugged when they abducted him and blinded with a pillow case when he is released- so he is left wanting to know their identities and where it was that he was taken.

He spends the second half of the film searching for them amongst all the women he encounters to try and track those tattoos and birthmarks down and find out who they are.

-'film is constructed in such a way that the audience plays the game of interpretation even after the viewing situation itself is concluded' [1]

Things remain unanswered or undisclosed, so you try and interpret the plot and the characters to answer them.

Leaving this movie (particularly if you don’t pay much attention to the credits) after watching the scenes with the hooded women, you can’t help but hypothesise and try and guess their identity. This is mine: Initially I thought it might have been Isabel, Bridget and Vivian (the dancer who gets him to 'check out' her inflamed ankle), given the way they all looked at him. But their identities are never disclosed (and two of them women are played by different actresses who never appear in the movie anywhere else; Anna Torv plays dual roles, so I was sort of right!). I thought it was a set up- why didn’t she go and get her own cigarettes? I thought Bridget was involved, because it is too convenient that they knew he’d be going through that alley at that particular time and they were there ready and waiting.

In addition to that, the issues that the film deals (like his transformation from victim to predator) and the plot of the film really leaves you thinking and trying to work out things out. Like for instance, about how he ended up like he did and where could Daniel possibly go from there? You are also left wondering if Julie is ok after being traumatised by his behaviour like she was and seeing her new boyfriend assault a woman in the bathroom and wondering if Isabel is going to get over her illness.

Now this was done only using one text’s discussion of the theory behind the art film genre, so you can see how you could suggest that it is an art film.


[1] Petley, Julian. 'Art cinema' Art Cinema as an Institution in Pam Cook & Mieke Bernink eds 1999, The Cinema Book, second edition, BFI, London: pp.107-110. available through the MED231 site at (for students).