And what did Fran make of the film? ‘My first impression of Bad Taste was of its being completely uninhibited and unrestrained. True, it didn’t have any really usable sound – you could hardly hear what people were saying – but because it was such a visual piece it didn’t really matter! What was so extraordinary was that, despite having hardly any money, the guys hadn’t allowed that fact to stop them from doing what they wanted to do. That was really impressive and I couldn’t believe that it wasn’t getting supported by the industry.’
Recalling the screening, Costa says: ‘Fran and Stephen shared my own reaction to Bad Taste and to this lunatic fan-boy who had made
Through Costa, I met a great group of local film-makers and writers. I wasted no time in getting them to help me build and paint sets. That’s Fran Walsh in the middle, standing on the chair and wielding a paint brush.
Tony Hiles was wonderful at not only steering me through film-making politics but in rolling his sleeves up and getting stuck in. Here, he and Bryce Campbell ready a smokebelching miniature of Gear Homestead for take-off.
it. I think we all looked on him as a kind of lovely fool, a brilliant idiot, a uniquely talented savant who was capable of coming up with amazing ideas and images. But I have to be honest and say that I really had no inkling, at that point, that he would go on to create cinema with real maturity and depth. Not really. That only became obvious a little later…’
Bad Taste came a step closer to getting Film Commission support when, in September 1986, Tony Hiles submitted his assessment of Bad Taste to Jim Booth. Tony had met with Peter at an editing suite at a company called, appropriately, ‘Mr Chopper’, run by Jamie Selkirk who had worked on Worzel Gummidge and, years later, would pick up an Oscar for editing The Return of the King.
Tony’s first reaction to the film and the film-maker is interesting: ‘Something which impressed me was that whilst the film needed a lot of work, Peter understood that I required specific details and information and, unlike most new film-makers who usually talk too much over their film, he told me exactly – and only – what I needed to know.’
At the end of the screening Tony had decided that he was going to recommend Bad Taste and that he would offer to help produce the film. ‘I had to think carefully about whether to get involved in somebody else’s film, but Jim and I were good pals, and I was always interested in shaking the tree! Besides, how could you not choose to get involved with this crazy little film? I thought “The Boys” were great – I’d never seen such a loose pack of hopeless heroes in my life, but I really wanted to watch them on screen! Bad Taste was new, it was renegade…’
Tony would subsequently write, in defence of the project: ‘The rough-cut that I viewed and assessed was a fair reflection of a film-maker growing through the production process. Despite the shortcomings of the film itself, the story was there and, most important, there was a feeling of inventiveness and cinematographic understanding in Peter Jackson’s work. There were other reasons for my support for the film – it is a product of determination, humour and individualism – no formula stuff here, a thoroughly New Zealand film with strong appeal made by, potentially, a new feature director with a pleasantly nasty sense of humour.’
At the time of filing his assessment, Tony described Bad Taste in the following terms: ‘Potentially, this film could be the Ultimate Low-Budget A+ Splatter and Squelch Movie. So far it has been shot and cut with such an OTT sense of humour and style that it could become a steady earning cult movie – but work needs to be done and it will soon be time for a little professional supervision to move the product economically to completion.’
The ‘school report’ assessment of Peter that followed was particularly revealing for the picture it gives of him at the time: ‘I think Peter Jackson deserves encouragement for his determination and skills. He is a very good special fx maker and, in addition, displays good basic skills in camera operation and editing. Given the constraints under which he has been working, including a re-cut after the departure of his hero, he has already shown himself to be resourceful and dedicated…’
I built a steadicam camera mount using plans from a US home movie magazine, CineMagic. Like the crane, it was a point, shoot, hope for the best device, but ended up working quite well.
Comparing him to one of the success-stories of New Zealand film, Geoff Murphy (who would later serve as Peter’s second unit director on The Lord of the Rings), Tony Hiles described him as ‘one of those people who will make films whether he gets any help or not.’
He went on: ‘I find his attitude worth encouraging – he has plans to get into special effects for film and does not appear to have superbig ideas about himself – a refreshing change from the usual starryeyed tyro who thinks the world owes him a living, or at least enough money to make a film.’
The appraisal ended with a couple of caveats: ‘There is a lot of untangling to be done and it won’t be that quick – but I’m sure it’s worth the effort, especially initially, as this will allow us to find out enough about him to know whether it’s worth continuing.’ And on the subject of money: ‘I recommend that any Film Commission investment is stage by stage, drip-fed, keeping the project reasonably lean and hungry, otherwise it could go all over the place, just like the aliens’ brains…’
Tony Hiles’ evaluation was to prove the turning-point in Peter’s career: it reinforced Jim Booth’s impression and provided independent evidence that would help convince the board of the Film Commission when the time came to approve investment in the film.
At the end of his report, Tony wrote: ‘I look forward to continued involvement with this Sheep-offal Saga.’ He had already warned Peter that the Commission might ask him to oversee the film’s progress to completion and when Jim Booth wrote to Peter, on 6 October 1986, with the news that the Film Commission was ‘now definitely interested in assisting you to complete the movie’, he added, along with requests for budgets, that the Commission wanted to appoint Tony as a consultant. In reply, Peter indicated that he was ‘very happy with the idea of working with Tony,’ although, as Tony pragmatically observes, ‘If I’d been a one-legged gorilla he’d have probably still said, “Yes!”’
In his letter to Peter, Jim Booth wrote: ‘Once again, I would like to congratulate you on your energy and the results obtained to date. A most commendable effort.’ Peter’s response was suitably expressive of his obvious gratitude:
‘Many thanks for the consideration that you have been giving to my movie over recent weeks. As you can imagine, I was delighted to receive your letter…I realise that my project doesn’t follow the normal pattern or accepted procedures, or whatever. The Film Commission’s support in spite of that makes me all the more grateful and, I should add, determined to produce something really worthwhile…
‘The next six months are going to be a great learning experience for me, far better than going to film school, and at the end of it we’ll have a finished film. I’m looking forward to all the learning, and I’m also looking forward to working within a set budget and schedule, a discipline I’ve never needed before.
‘So thanks again for the faith you have shown in me. I won’t let you down.’
After signing off – ‘Kind regards, Pete