Duet for Four

This is a marvelously entertaining drama, soapie type film, I really got engrossed in. Always something happening type film, that hits home, with realistic everyday people, in much real situations. The performances are really good, no more than Preston's, a character who we really get caught up, who has his share of problems. Again, like in Hoodwink, we're granted a nice perv at Hughes's goodies, for a few seconds. The woman in this are beautiful, towel clad Binney, who sets a.new standard in hotness. Pate is a lot of fun in this, and Comber as Cilento's toy boy, left an impression too. Dignam, too, in top form delivery again as Preston's friend, legal advisor. Overall, colorful drama. With a nice intro music score, and a droning, annoying one at the end.

Award-winning playwright and screenwriter David Williamson wrote screenplays for 19 films and many of them were classics.

This is unfortunately one of his poorest efforts, lacking the witty dialogue and biting satire of his best efforts. Despite having some of Australia's best actors, this film goes nowhere slowly. There are some interesting characters: Mike Preston's Ray gains our sympathy as he tries to keep all his balls in the air, but he is a bit dull; Wendy Hughes is good as the girlfriend, but we don't see enough of her; Diane Cilento also has some charisma, but her character is a bit self-centred to like; Sigrid Thornton, plays Ray's daughter. Who is too sweet and hopeless to like much; and Michael Pate, who plays the brash American, is always annoying.

There is a lot of action, but none of it seems to matter very much, unfortunately.

Writer David Williamson once explained that this tale of an Australian toy company in negotiations with a powerful American corporation (think Mattel) is a metaphor for the Australian film industry in the early 1980s, worried about losing its financial and creative independence. If so, it's a pretty clumsy one, and the comparison with 'Spotswood', made a decade later and set in a small Melbourne shoe factory, doesn't do Williamson any favours. Significantly, that film was a gentle comedy. It's hard to take 'Duet' seriously because of its try-hard tossing together of way too many plot elements, some laughably ridiculous, others stale and hackneyed. It might have fared better if it had gone the comedy route too. Having recently watched 'Don's Party', I'm beginning to question Williamson's accolades. The reputation for snappy dialogue, realistic depictions of Aussie life and relationships and great one-liners was earned in the theatre, I guess. On film, his dialogue and plots often just seem to be in need of serious editing.

There are things to enjoy, nevertheless. I watched it for the nostalgia of experiencing a little of a time and place that mean a lot to me, and to learn more about Australian films of that era.

Worth watching is Mike Preston as toy company exec Ray and Wendy Hughes as his de facto, both making the most of their roles and often lacklustre dialogue. Diane Cilento as Ray's posh and demanding ex is stylish and Sigrid Thornton does about as much as possible as one-dimensional troubled daughter. For entertainment value, it's fun to watch the absolute hash Michael Pate makes of Al, the American corporate wheeler-dealer, so bad he's almost good. Everything about the character is unconvincing and shallow. If, as Williamson suggests, the setting of 'Duet' is a metaphor, then perhaps the role of Al could be viewed as a metaphor too, for Williamson's hit-and-miss characters.

It's hard to believe that a writer like David Williamson, who wrote terrific screenplays for films like "The Club" and "Don's Party" could make a dull film. It's hard to believe that director Tim Burstall, who'd collaborated with Williamson on the flawed but fascinating "Petersen", could make a dull film.

But unfortunately "Duet For Four" is a dull film.

This drama about a middle-aged businessman dealing with overseas takeover attempts, his ex-wife, troubled daughter and current partner seems potentially interesting but none of Williamson's usual incisiveness or Burstall's bluntness is on display.

It just ambles from one narrative incident to another without much passion or purpose. One suspects if DFF had been made in the mid-1970s it would've reflected the tumult, upheaval and radicalisation of that era and a more impassioned film would've resulted. But instead it feels complacent and safe.

That's not to say DFF is a horrible film. It's fairly easy to watch and has an interesting cast, including Diane Cilento in one of her rare post-1970 roles.

But overall this is a forgettable film and one of Williamson's weakest screenplays.