However, the next version saw Arch killed off, and again to my mind, this seemed unnecessary. I objected and Stewart reworked the scene, producing something which was far cleverer. In the scene where Arch falls off the bridge, instead of proving fatal (as the screenplay had originally played it), Arch is badly injured yet still manages to be as poisonous as ever. He lies about what happened and implicates Roy. This raises the stakes, provides the motivation for Roy to flee, and leads to the film’s climactic scene at the farmhouse.
Aside from these two instances, I tried not to be precious about my novel. I didn’t want to dictate what could or couldn’t be done, and endeavoured to be open to new ideas. I even suggested a few myself and some of them have ended up in the finished film. For example, it was thought that Lou needed to have some internal dilemma of her own that she was wrestling with and which would contribute to her falling out with Billy. Another problem was the need to introduce Belinda into the film earlier. I suggested Lou would have issues over the need to be fitted for a bra and that this would require a visit to the fashion boutique where Belinda worked. Stewart wrote a wonderful comic scene and it’s a great moment in the film, which isn’t in the book.
But ultimately, my direct contribution to the final screenplay is very minimal. There are suggestions I made of how to rework a scene or an occasional line of dialogue. But it’s Stewart’s screenplay and what’s more, he also contributed the film’s best comic lines. When I saw the film for the first time, I noticed that it was Stewart’s original dialogue that drew the biggest laughs from the audience.
One aspect Stewart wanted to highlight in his screenplay was the rugby storyline. In the book, there’s really only a chapter devoted to Billy’s disinterest in rugby. But in the film it becomes a major plot thread, developed from the beginning and culminating in the big match at the climax of the film. Much of this is Stewart’s invention and there is a particularly ingenious moment near the start of the film, when an alien monster appears who resembles a giant rugby ball. It’s a very apt image – for poor Billy rugby is a monster! But this is also an important storyline for a general audience to respond to. It’s about rugby, one of New Zealand’s great passions, not two boys fooling around together, yet also demonstrates that some girls (Lou) and ‘poofter boys’ (Roy) are in fact very good at rugby.
Between 2001 and 2002, the project began to find favour again. I saw three different screenplays during that time, there was another change of staff at the Film Commission, and then finally, heroically, by spring 2002, Michele and Stewart had the funding wrapped up. Money was committed by the NZ Film Commission and NZ on Air (the television funding body) and everything was being planned for a shoot in early 2003. Then, dramatically, Stewart came down with TB and ended up quarantined in hospital. Obviously, this threw everything out and eventually Michele was forced to postpone the shoot until 2004. It could not merely be postponed for three to six months, as the screenplay specified drought conditions and it needed to be filmed over a Central Otago summer. Thankfully, the NZ Film Commission was supportive of the decision to postpone and remained committed to seeing the film made.
Although it was highly frustrating to call a halt to the production, it did permit the luxury of a further twelve months to refine the screenplay and project. Stewart used some of that time to actually live in Ophir, the tiny town in Central Otago which had been chosen for the shoot. He soaked up the surroundings, scouted for locations and polished the screenplay. The film finally went into production in February 2004 for a period of seven weeks. There was one major problem: the weather. The region had suffered a drought throughout December and January which was terrible for the local farmers but perfect for the film as that was what the screenplay called for. However, by February, the drought had broken and the rain began to fall. Not only did the cast and crew have to persevere through wet and cold conditions, but the landscape also began to change from brown to green. This problem of green rather than parched brown hills was ultimately fixed in post-production at considerable expense.
From the very early days of planning, the novel’s setting in Central Otago was seen as integral to the film. Although it would have been easier to choose locations adjacent to Auckland or other locations with a more established infrastructure for making films, the director and producer were committed to filming in Central Otago. Over the years, they had several scouting expeditions down south. It is a unique landscape and when the film was first planned, it was also scenery that had been seldom seen in New Zealand cinema – the film Illustrious Energy being the main exception.
However, that all changed with the advent of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings which utilised numerous locations in the area. The advantage of this unique setting could not have been gazumphed more thoroughly. Lord of the Rings wasn’t merely a film – it was a phenomenon. It had a massive effect on New Zealand tourism. A guide book was even published which led admirers of the film’s scenery to the various locations used in Central Otago and elsewhere. Yet the Lord of the Rings films used locations from all over New Zealand to conjure up the magical world of Middle Earth. Central Otago was masquerading as an otherworldly place, whereas in 50 Ways Central is simply itself and utterly integral to the film. The importance of the landscape is expressed from the very beginning of the film with cinematographer Simon Raby’s stunning opening sequence which has an almost painterly quality.
Lord of the Rings actually benefited the 50 Ways project in several ways. The local community had already had the experience of a film company in the area, and though that was filmmaking on a big budget scale, it did mean there was an appreciation of what the film could do for the community and area. There were also skills that had been developed in providing services for a film cast and crew in terms of catering and accommodation. But the best bequest left by Lord of the Rings was a road. The strange outcrops of rocks which serve as Billy and Lou’s playground, Dragonland had been previously spotted by the Lord of the Rings team. They had planned to film a battle scene there and even built a road up to the remote spot for that purpose, only to change their mind later about using the location. But the road remained, almost as if it had been constructed with 50 Ways and Dragonland in mind.
In the novel, the setting is Paerau, the farming valley where I grew up. Beautiful and unique though it is, it was far too isolated to be practical as a film location. It’s not a town, not even a village, just a handful of farmhouses and a school strung around the foothills of a valley. Shops, accommodation, and a pub are all 45 kilometres away in the nearest large town of Ranfurly. Paerau was never a serious contender as the setting, yet, as the crow flies, it is literally just over a range of hills from the location in Poolburn that was finally selected. You can’t really get much more faithful to the novel’s setting than that.
I visited the film set in early March 2004. It was a fascinating experience as I had never been on a film set before and I was struck by all of the work involved and the intricacy of detail being applied. It was particularly intriguing to meet the child actors, and watch them in some of their scenes. I was extremely impressed with the casting, especially that of Billy (Andrew Paterson) and Lou (Harriet Beattie). Key production members such as camera man Simon Raby, production designer Ken Turner, and costume designer Kirsty Cameron also spent time with me. They explained how they had approached their particular job and the various artistic and practical decisions that had been made, especially in regard to the Seventies time period.
I also got to meet Michael Dorman (Jamie) on that visit; I had actually suggested him to Stewart for the role. There had always been an interest in casting an Australian actor in the ‘sexy’ role of Jamie the farmhand, possibly a TV soap star. In spring 2003, I was waiting at the hairdressers, and flicking through a magazine when I noticed an article on Michael Dorman. I was a fan of the Australian TV series he appeared in (The Secret Life of Us) but I was surprised to read that he was originally from New Zealand. Then, I took note of his hair: it wa
s shoulder length, shaggy, sexy and absolutely perfect for the Seventies setting of the film. In the novel, Billy is a big fan of David Cassidy and Jamie is described as looking like him. Michael’s colouring was completely different – blond and blue-eyed – but everything else about him struck me as perfect for the role. I wrote to Stewart suggesting him. In due course I heard that Michael had been approached but that it was unlikely they could afford him. I was very surprised and pleased when Stewart sent through word just prior to the start of filming that Michael had been cast. But unfortunately, the long shaggy hair that had so impressed me was gone. It had been cut off for the new season of Secret Life before Michael was cast.
I came away from that visit to the film set feeling very confident that the finished film was going to be good. I’d read the screenplay which was funny but also poignantly affecting on the page. But now I had seen what the actors were bringing to that script and could also appreciate how extremely well cast they were. Nor were these easy roles to cast. The film placed enormous demands on the young actors, especially Andrew as Billy. The physical setting was perfect and from the small amount of footage I saw, looked stunning on film. The Seventies time period had also been faithfully recreated without making a joke of it and every aspect of the production impressed me as highly professional. All the elements seemed to be in place.
So when it came to seeing the finished film for the first time, I didn’t really feel nervous or concerned that I wouldn’t like it – though I suspect Stewart had those emotions about my reaction. My overwhelming emotion was more curiosity to finally see it. My first viewing was at the Outtakes Festival screening in Christchurch in June 2005. The New Zealand premiere had been held in Auckland a couple of weeks earlier but I had been unable to attend. However, the Christchurch screening was more personal for me as I had grown up in the South Island; that was where the novel was set and the film was shot. The audience could appreciate that this was a truly local film. It also meant that a large contingent of my family could attend the screening as they all lived in the South Island.
But the film still held many surprises and thrills for me. I had only met some of the cast when I visited the set, so I was seeing Rima Te Wiata as Aunt Evey and George Mason as Arch for the first time. The look and style of the film was also a revelation given the budgetary constraints Michele and Stewart had worked under. One qualm I’d had was over the space scenes, with a sneaking suspicion that they might be kind of clunky. But instead, they are an absolute highlight and Andrew in drag as Lana is stunning. In the still photographs, I’d seen prior to the screening, I’d even failed to recognise him! There is also a wealth of very clever period detail in the film’s production design which is absolutely spot-on and brought a nostalgic smile to my face.
My initial response to the film was wholehearted enthusiasm and delight. Later, in the days that followed, I began to feel the occasional pang of regret that some moment or scene from the book or an earlier draft of the screenplay hadn’t made it into the finished film. But as the author, that is only natural. I always knew that a 90 minute feature film could never explore all the plot the novel contains. For me, the gay themes have always been the most important aspect of the novel, so I was very pleased and relieved that they were given such a full, frank and funny exploration in Stewart’s film. Gay audiences are often short-changed when gay-themed stories make the transition from print to film: the characters and themes are watered down or transformed completely and it can be so disappointing. That’s definitely not the case with this film – it will deeply satisfy a gay audience – but with its strong performances and universal themes, it’s also very likely to charm a general audience.
But 50 Ways is also very distinctively a New Zealand film. As an expatriate New Zealander who still retains a very strong identification with my homeland, it was wonderfully affirming to watch a film that had such a unique New Zealand setting and character. There are lots of small moments in the film that capture that particular period in New Zealand so evocatively. When I was growing up in rural New Zealand in the 1970s, there were no positive representations of gay men anywhere. So to see a life, so similar to the one I lived in many ways, on the big screen is nothing short of revelatory. I can’t imagine such a film being made back in the Seventies when it is set, so it is also a testament to the fact that times have changed, attitudes towards homosexuality are more enlightened and accepting, and hopefully for young people, coming out is not so daunting and difficult. A large part of the reason I left New Zealand for Sydney at age twenty-one was to come out as gay away from friends and family and their expectations.
Finally, I think I need to address the one question I get asked a lot about my book and the film: is the main character Billy based on me? There isn’t a quick yes or no answer to this question – it’s more complex. Certainly, the very first draft of the novel was extremely autobiographical. However, many other drafts followed that initial one and the finished book is very different to my first attempt. Writing a novel is a process of developing, rewriting and refining. As I worked, I made many changes for narrative purposes. I also exaggerated many events to make them funny or dramatic and invented lots of entirely new scenes, characters and events. During that process, Billy’s story took on a life of its own, different to my life though still with common ground. As for the other characters, they are fictional. There are occasional moments or lines of dialogue that owe a debt to reality, but I have not put my family in the novel.
In many ways Billy is my fictional ‘identical twin’. On the surface we might seem the same and we do have shared experiences, but there are also many differences. But certainly, I was fat, theatrical, and a fledgling poofter. I loathed rugby and farm work, both of which were compulsory, and I did on one occasion use a cow’s tail as a hair piece. However, when I tried ‘my wig’ out on a visitor – the local vet of all people, who would certainly be able to recognise a cow’s tail – he wasn’t fooled and I threw it away.
As for the film, the character of Billy has been filtered through Stewart’s point-of-view and is subtly different once again. Though I must admit it was rather uncanny seeing still photographs of Andrew Paterson as Billy for the first time. There was a definite resemblance to what I looked like at that age. He even had a two-tone towelling hat exactly like the one I used to wear as a child.
A version of this essay was first published in September 2005 by the North American distributor of the film, Olive Films.
Images from the film adaptation
Images from the film adaptation of 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous
Photography by Craig Wright
Billy (Andrew Patterson) and Jamie (Michael Dorman).
Lou (Harriet Beattie) and Billy (Andrew Patterson)
Aunt Evey (Rima Te Wiata), Lou (Harriet Beattie) and Belinda (Michelle O’Brien).
Billy (Andrew Patterson) and Roy (Jay Collins).
Jamie (Michael Dorman) and Billy (Andrew Patterson).
See this fabulous coming-of-age story on screen with the 50 WAYS OF SAYING FABULOUS DVD, now available.
Buy this Olive Films DVD from your favourite retailer.
FREE DOWNLOAD OFFER!
Time to Upsize
(The Indignities Book One)
By Graeme Aitken
Download from your favourite retailer.
Upsize instantly to this witty, sexy and bestselling Australian series of e-books! The Indignities Book One is available FOR FREE as a special introductory offer!
Turning thirty years old can be traumatic for young gay men who yearn to be boyish forever – but what can you do? It’s unavoidable. Or is it? Clever, conniving Stephen Spear thinks he can outsmart this particular milestone. After all, he’s managed to convince his sweet, passive boyfriend Blake that he’s been faithful to him for the past three years. Smoothing over and explaining away inconvenient realities is an absolute cinch for Stephen!
But when temptation moves right next-door in the form of Rick, a Sydney
hunk with a legendary endowment, Stephen disregards any sense of caution. He’s too entranced and far too self-absorbed to realise that the seduction might not actually unfold in accordance with his master plan.
Stephen Spear, the anti-hero of the bestselling Australian novel Vanity Fierce, rides again in this outrageous sequel. Set ten years after Vanity Fierce, this new series of books can also be read as a self-contained storyline.
Praise for The Indignities from influential Australian mainstream media:
‘Aitken’s wit is wicked in every sense of that word, while his ability to address confronting issues in a deceptively sunny manner is admirable.’ (Australian Book Review)
‘The gay world has turned since Vanity Fierce, with the internet making its mark on social and sexual behaviour. Aitken has a keen sense of that, opening a window onto the lively confusions of gay culture.’ (The Age, Melbourne)
The newspaper of record for Sydney’s GLBT community urges readers to read The Indignities.
‘Aitken may have written the prequel to this book more than a decade ago, but don’t let that fool you into thinking The Indignities is a second-rate follow. Far from it. Aitken has has not only given character Stephen Spear a whole new audience, but also provided him with the depth of character readers of Vanity Fierce feared he may never find. A must read.’ (Sydney Star Observer)