CUSTODY
Australia, 1988, 92 minutes, Colour.
Judith Stratford, Peter Browne.
Directed by Ian Munro.
Custody is a docudrama produced by Film Australia. It was very well received and had prime time television screening by Channel 9 in mid-1988.
Directed by Ian Munro, it was made in three weeks (much of it with handheld camera) and much of the dialogue improvised. The storyline was devised by Anne Charlton and Anna Green and the actors took over bringing the characters and situations to life. Judith Stratford and Peter Bowes are excellent as Christine and Andrew. Some professional actors, including Susan Leith as Margaret, also participated. However, the professional people, lawyers, social workers and the judge, entered into the spirit of the film-making and acted out the kind of advice and behaviour that they would normally offer in these situations. The judge entered into the role play and made his final judgment accordingly.
The film focuses on the breakdown of marriages in Australia, the increasingly high statistics. It also focuses on Australian legislation, Family Law and the requirements and conduct of the Family Court. The film highlights the bitterness between an estranged husband and wife and its effect on the children. The film is a cautionary documentary drama about marriage breakdown.
1. The work of Film Australia? Its making a feature length documentary drama? Its potential audience? Style and purpose?
2. The background of Australian Family Law, the Family Court, people participating in divorce and custody proceedings, emotional difficulties (murders and bombings associated with Family Court procedures)? The repercussions of the experiences of going through the courts?
3. The blend of realism and stylised acting? The acting cast and their improvisation? The professional cast and their acting out their professional behaviour? The outline of the plot and characters and the cast improvising? The professionals and their interpretation of characters and procedures? The nature of the final judgment?
4. Sydney background, homes, the streets, the courts? An atmosphere of authenticity and realism?
5. The initial custody situation: the hostility between husband and wife, their different stances, their help from the lawyers, the judge and the proceedings, the role of the children, the importance of the money and the high costs?
7. The flashbacks and the build-up effect? The selection of incidents? The selection of interviews? Information given? The fade-in and fade-out and audiences supplying what went an during the discussions? The emotional build-up of the re-creation of the sequences at home, in the court? The stances of the film-makers? sympathy, the point of view of Christine, Andrew? Any bias? The initial information about marriage in Australia, the one third marriages ending in divorce? The growing statistic? Family Law and the Family Court? This family as symbol of those who go through the court?
8. Andrew and Christine, their marriage, not much information given, the photo of the united family? The break-up? Christine making Andrew leave? Their still living in his house? Each in themselves, as characters, strengths and weaknesses? Break-up, the consequences? The effect on the children? The home situation? Relationships? Christine and a short relationship, Andrew and his remarrying? The repercussions of the break-up on their work, on the children? A growing hatred? The passing of time, financial difficulties, their interviews? Each trying to understand the other or not?
9. The break-up and its situation, regulations about access and the discussions about this, the children refusing to go with their father, each of the parents prejudicing the children against the other? The house and the property? The selling of the house, its repercussions, the compromise, Christine and the children going into the flat, in the discussions? smaller yard, swinging on the clothesline, poor performance at school, truancy, shoplifting and the taking of Justin into custody? Christine's decision not to tell Andrew? The consequences?
10. The custody inquiry and Mr Kent going to each household, his being welcomed, observing, the indications of his report on each of the adults, on each of the children? The accuracy of his observations?
11. The presentation of the lawyers, the handling of the interviews? The social workers? Dealing or fighting? The lawyer for the children and trying to get their point of view? The unwillingness of Justin to talk? His withdrawn attitudes? Kathy and her living in a fantasy and wanting her parents to reconcile?
12. The build-up to the final hearing, the briefing, the role of the judge, the hearing, the cross-examination of each of the characters and the attention to detail, possibilities of giving explanations or not? The cold eye of law and objectivity looking at subjective attitudes? The testing of motivations?
13. The decision, the judge's report and the reasons for favouring Christine? The objectivity of his observation about Margaret and her relationships with the children, the lack of presence of Andrew and his inability to continue to help, the need for the children to be together, for Christine to be able to help them?
14. The realism of the ending: Andrew and his disgust, Christine and her feeling badly, her trying to make some kind of contact with Margaret and the hopes for the children? The consequences for the children?
15. The purpose of the film: about Australian society, marriage break-up, statistics, Family law and the Family Court? Audiences' emotional involvement in the situation? Understandings? The film as an attempt at preventative help for marriage partners to stay together, to understand each, the children?
