Film Finances and Golden Rendezvous (1977): Financial Mismanagement, Personal Tensions and Political Scandal

Abstract

This article explores the problematic production history of Golden Rendezvous (1977), an action-adventure film based on a novel by Alistair MacLean. It draws upon the archive of the completion guarantor Film Finances to document the complex international financing arrangements that exemplified the practice of distribution pre-sales in the 1970s. Golden Rendezvous is a highly revealing case study of financial mismanagement and political controversy. The film overran its schedule due to troubles on location, the financing arrangements fell apart, and the subsequent revelation that the South African government had secretly invested in the film made it a toxic product that struggled to find a distributor for the all-important US market.

Golden Rendezvous (1977) – produced by Andre Pieterse and directed by Ashley Lazarus from the novel by Alistair MacLean – was one of the most troubled productions ever guaranteed by Film Finances.¹ The London-based completion guarantor had been in business since 1950 and had guaranteed around 600 films at the time of Golden Rendezvous: these included a number of major international productions – including The African Queen (1951), Zulu (1964) and Cabaret (1972) – as well as many routine British pictures. Film Finances provided guarantees of completion: a guarantee to the investors in a film that it would be delivered on schedule and without any further call upon them in the event that it exceeded the agreed budget. Before 1950 the provision of completion guarantees had been a largely ad hoc business undertaken either by insurance companies (who often had little knowledge of the film industry) or by individual ‘persons of substance’: Film Finances had been set up ‘with a view to continuity of operation on business lines, it being hoped that by covering a certain number of pictures in each year some sort of average on insurance lines, would be struck’.² Its business model was posited on the expectation that around one film in five would call upon the guarantee and that an average over-cost would be in the region of ten per cent of the budget. However, some films significantly exceeded that amount: Film Finances had incurred large losses on Action of the Tiger (1957), Lancelot and Guinevere (1963), The Bobo (1967) and Lock Up Your Daughters (1969).³ Golden Rendezvous would be its biggest liability to date: Film Finances advanced over US $2 million towards the completion of the film which it never recovered.

Most case studies of film production have focused either on films deemed historically and socially significant or on popular favourites. One of the particular values of the Film Finances Archive is that it includes a large number of routine and ordinary productions as well as the better-known films. Golden Rendezvous makes for a particularly illuminating production case study that is as revealing about the wider landscape of international production and finance in the post-studio era as it is about the specific problems that affected a single film. On the one hand Golden Rendezvous is an entirely unremarkable film: it was one of a cycle of films based on the popular adventure novels of Alistair MacLean in the 1960s and 1970s – others included The Guns of Navarone (1961), The Satan Bug (1965), Ice Station Zebra (1968), Where Eagles Dare (1968), Puppet on a Chain (1970), When Eight Bells Toll (1971), Fear is the Key (1972), Caravan to Vaccares (1974), Breakheart Pass (1975), Force 10 From Navarone (1978) and Bear Island (1979)⁴ – and, it has to be said, is not an especially distinguished example of the genre. On the other hand Golden Rendezvous is unique in so far as its production was bedevilled by a possibly unprecedented sequence of largely unconnected troubles that caused it to exceed its schedule and budget by over 50 per cent and left the completion guarantor with an unsellable film on their hands. If not quite on the scale of Heaven’s Gate (1980) or Raise the Titanic! (1980), Golden Rendezvous nevertheless became a byword for financial mismanagement even before it became the focus of a wholly unexpected political controversy.

Film finances and the international film industry in the 1970s

The landscape of film finance, especially for films produced for the international market, was transformed in the 1970s. Over the previous two decades the standard model of finance for independent producers was to raise the budget secured against a distribution guarantee: this was a guarantee from one of the major distributors to return a minimum amount to the producer from the distributor’s receipts against which the producer could borrow the money from one of the lending banks which would be repaid (including interest) from the producer’s share of the box-office receipts. A combination of circumstances towards the end of the 1960s – including structural change in the US film industry, the heavy losses sustained by the major Hollywood studios at the end of the decade, and the emergence of more independent producers not aligned with a particular studio – helped to bring about the conditions in which the financing model for independent production changed. In particular there was a shift towards consortium funding (where a group of investors rather than a single studio would provide equity capital) and the pre-sale of distribution rights on a territorial basis (where rather than one distributor providing a minimum guarantee, distributors would bid for rights to particular territories and provide their advances up-front in the form of letters of credit which the producer could then discount with a lending bank). There were particular advantages to this model from the producer’s perspective as it meant that more of the risk was taken by distributors: payment was due upon delivery of the film, so the producer should – provided the film had been completed on budget and schedule – be in profit once the production loan had been repaid.⁵

The pioneers of distribution pre-sales were independent producers such as Euan Lloyd, Dimitri de Grunwald and Josef Shaftel. Lloyd, a former publicist for Warwick Films who became an independent producer in his own right in the 1960s, pioneered territorial pre-sales for his production of Shalako (1968). He claimed that ‘Shalako was put together in what was then a unique fashion, in that it was presold to most of the countries in the world before a foot of film went through the camera.’⁶ The film was originally budgeted at £1,457,338.⁷ Lloyd had been unable to interest any of the Hollywood studios in his big-budget European Western, even with a star cast headed by Sean Connery and Brigitte Bardot, so instead he raised the budget by securing promissory notes from distributors in 35 separate territories which he then discounted with the London-based merchant bank Morgan Grenfell.⁸ Dimitri de Grunwald, who had been involved in negotiating the bank loan for Shalako, set up the International Film Consortium in 1968: this was an alliance of independent distributors in 33 countries – including Chevron Pictures in the United States, Eurofilms of Holland, Juneau International of Argentina and Mallah Films of Israel – which provided guarantees based on the anticipated receipts for each territory and took a share of the profits in proportion to their investment.⁹ De Grunwald’s production arm was London Screenplays, which produced a programme of films including Perfect Friday (1970), The McMasters (1970) and Murphy’s War (1971) through a revolving credit of £10 million from Morgan Grenfell.¹⁰ And early in 1970 the American producer Josef Shaftel, best known as producer of the television series The Untouchables (1959–63), announced a deal with the Cinema Releasing Corporation for a programme of films ‘largely to be made in Britain’ that would involve an investment of around US $14 million: these included The Last Grenade (1970), Say Hello to Yesterday (1971) and The Statue (1971).¹¹ Shaftel – whose credit was provided by the Bank of America and London-based merchant bank Hill Samuel – averred that the new conditions in the film industry represented an opportunity:

New opportunities exist now as never before – particularly for those film-makers who are able to assemble the right elements, budget them sensibly and realistically, provide independent financing, and take the whole package to a major distributor. It places all the controls, financial and artistic, directly in the hands of the producer (who also arranges for a guarantee of completion to satisfy the banks providing the financing) and the result is a film made with greater efficiency and at lower cost.¹²

That, at least, was the theory.

Film Finances adapted to the changing landscape in the 1970s. Hitherto it had focused its business mostly on the British domestic production sector – albeit involving films sponsored by American distributors as well as wholly British-financed product – and had not touched the more expensive international productions. The highest-budget films it had guaranteed in the 1960s were up to around £1 million (US $2.4 million). It passed up The Long Ships (1964), produced by Irving Allen for Columbia, as the estimated budget of $3 million ‘was very much in excess of the sort of budget which we normally deal with’.¹³ It was a similar case for Where Eagles Dare, produced by Elliot Kastner for MGM at a budget of $4.5 million: Film Finances felt that ‘the budget above and below the line would seem to possibly come out beyond what we consider our normal price range’.¹⁴ And it declined the war epic Battle of Britain (1969), which producers Harry Saltzman and Benjamin S. Fisz brought to Film Finances in 1966: ‘This proposition, by virtue of its size, its budget, its nature and the personalities involved is we feel somewhat out of our class.’¹⁵

In the 1970s, however, Film Finances became more outward-looking and international. This was signalled by its decision to guarantee Cy Feuer and Bob Fosse’s production of Cabaret (1972) for the ABC Pictures Corporation at a budget of US $4,046,042.¹⁶ Cabaret was the most expensive film that Film Finances had guaranteed to this point and was replete with production hazards such as ‘the musical numbers, the sequence in the castle at Cologne and the sort of location which is indicated as being required in Berlin’.¹⁷ Nevertheless it was completed without any call on the guarantee. Film Finances’ change of policy was a response to changing economic circumstances in the industry. The contraction of the British domestic production sector in the 1970s meant there were fewer of the sort of bread-and-butter films on which Film Finances had built its business over the previous two decades. It was therefore obliged to adjust its strategy. Other large-scale international films that it guaranteed in the early and mid-1970s – all involving extensive overseas locations – included Gold (1974), The Wind and the Lion (1975), The Man Who Would Be King (1975) and Shout at the Devil (1976).¹⁸

There were significant risks for Film Finances in guaranteeing these films. Location pictures – especially overseas location pictures – were among the most hazardous productions from a guarantor’s point of view: the inherent risks of location shooting (including weather and the perennial unreliability of local contractors) were compounded by geographical distance which made it more difficult to maintain day-to-day oversight of the filming. A recurring feature of several of these films was that Film Finances was only alerted to escalating costs at a relatively late stage. Film Finances had been about to invoke its contractual right to take over the production of Gold – shot on location in South Africa by producer Michael Klinger – when Klinger (who nevertheless maintained that ‘I feel that I have exercised a very careful and rigid financial control and that only minimum costs have been involved to produce a first class motion picture’) asked to cancel the guarantee contract.¹⁹ The Man Who Would Be King – produced by John Foreman and directed by John Huston for Allied Artists (North America) and Columbia Pictures (international) with a budget of $5,835,789 – encountered significant difficulties on location in North Africa. On that occasion the distributors advanced additional funds to cover the cost of reshooting a key battle sequence.²⁰ Shout at the Devil proved to be especially problematic. It was again produced by Michael Klinger and shot in South Africa on a budget of $6,591,657 raised through a combination of pre-sales and a negative pick-up of $2.5 million from independent distributor American International Pictures (North America). It soon became evident that the distance from London made it very difficult for Film Finances to monitor the production in the way they would have liked. Film Finances’ managing-director Robert Garrett was incredulous when he heard Klinger’s excuse that the progress and cost reports had been lost at Rome airport: ‘What can one make of Klinger? Is he the most inefficient fool or a crook, or both?’²¹ Once again the guarantee contract was cancelled by mutual agreement.²² However, Film Finances was about to become involved with a producer who made Klinger look like a model of professional integrity and financial probity.

Producing Golden Rendezvous

Golden Rendezvous had a long journey to the screen. Alistair MacLean’s heist-at-sea adventure novel The Golden Rendezvous had been published in 1962. MacLean sold the film rights to Dial Films, owned by actor Laurence Harvey, for £250,000 plus five per cent of the profits. Dial Films sold their rights to MGM in 1968 and MacLean was paid $200,000 to adapt his own novel into a screenplay.²³ MGM no doubt saw The Golden Rendezvous as a follow-up to Ice Station Zebra (1968), another contemporary thriller adapted by MacLean from his own novel. However, the film then remained in development for several years. It is not clear why MGM cooled on the film. It may have been that Ice Station Zebra, which returned domestic rentals of $4,655,000, had been less successful for the studio than the British-made World War II ‘men on a mission’ movie Where Eagles Dare, which returned $7,150,000.²⁴ And other MacLean adaptations in the early 1970s – including Puppet on a Chain, When Eight Bells Toll and Fear is the Key – did only moderate business at the box office. Instead MGM pursued the possibility of leasing the rights to another producer. In 1973 it loaned the services of writer John Gay to Sentry Productions ‘to write a revised final screenplay and “polish” of Golden Rendezvous’ for $6,500.²⁵ When this initiative bore no fruit, MGM sold its rights in Golden Rendezvous to Film Trust Overseas in 1974 for the sum of $1.²⁶ Film Trust Overseas was owned by South African-born Andre Pieterse, formerly MGM’s vice-president in charge of international distribution, who had recently set up as an independent producer.

Pieterse secured Richard Harris for the starring role of First Officer John Carter with Harris’s wife Ann Turkel as the female lead. Harris had recently starred in the similar action-disaster film The Cassandra Crossing (1976) for Sir Lew Grade’s Associated Communications Corporation, which had featured Turkel in a supporting role. Harris was to be paid a picture fee of $500,000 with a contracted period of 60 days after which weekly overage payments would come into effect. Pieterse raised the cash budget for the film through the pre-sale of distribution rights. The security agreement provided that ‘the Producer has sold distribution rights and/or profit participations in the film to various individuals who have collateralized their promise to pay for such rights or participations with irrevocable letters of credit which have been issued by various bankers to the Producer’.²⁷ United Artists offered $850,000 for North America and the Rank Organisation $500,000 for the United Kingdom and Australasia. United Artists offered another $850,000 for European rights excluding the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. Other creditors included Nippon-Herald of Japan for the Far East excluding Hong Kong ($525,000), AB Europa Film of Sweden ($157,000), Expressa Cines Unidos for Latin America ($130,000), Mutual Productions for Francophone Canada ($60,000) and Edco Enterprises for Hong Kong ($55,000).²⁸ Against the various letters of credit Pieterse was able to raise a loan from the Chemical Bank of New York, deferring his producer’s fee to make up the difference between the total distributors’ advances and the estimated budget.

Associate producer Robert Porter submitted the papers for Golden Rendezvous to Film Finances for a completion guarantee in February 1977. It was to be shot entirely on location in South Africa, with a schedule of 49 days spread over nine weeks. The budget was set at £2,410,630 (US $4,122,177): the total ‘above the line’ cost amounted to £967,120 – including £173,727 for story and script, £181,818 for the producer’s fee, £60,000 director’s fee and £351,515 for principal artists – with a ‘below the line’ cost of £1,128,107 and overheads and legal fees of £515,107.²⁹ The task of scrutinising the papers fell, as usual, to Film Finances’ production consultant John Croydon, whose experience in the film industry extended back to the 1930s and included being a production accountant, associate producer and studio manager. Croydon, as was his habit, scrutinised the papers in forensic detail. He immediately detected evidence of script revisions, which he felt had been made not for plot reasons but rather to build up the role played by Ann Turkel:

The screenplay is written basically in master scene form, but I am quite sure – and the production manager, Douglas Twiddy, who is still in London, confirms – was made from an earlier script. The screenplay we have read has obviously been ‘doctored’ by the director, which has had the effect of elongating the entire operation, and this he has done by the introduction of A and B scenes which, at times, cause confusion and the omission of a number of key scenes from the X plot … This modification is being applied, apparently, at the behest of Richard Harris, rather in the interests of his wife who is to play Susan than necessity for a story point.³⁰

Croydon proceeded to list the manifold production hazards of Golden Rendezvous, suggesting that a scene involving the exchange of hostages by gangplank was ‘an absurd improbability’ and concluding that the action sequences as described in the script ‘are outside the scope of the budget and even if the producer agrees to lengthen the schedule to 60 days, a considerable degree of modification will still be necessary’. Croydon’s recommendation was equivocal: he did not reject the film outright but suggested that ‘a great deal of investigation’ would be necessary before the film was due to start shooting at the end of the month.

Film Finances agreed to provide its guarantee despite Croydon’s reservations: it soon had cause to regret this decision. Golden Rendezvous went before the cameras on 28 February and immediately fell behind schedule. After one week production manager Douglas Twiddy sent a telex to Film Finances: ‘THREE DAYS OVER DUE TO CAMERA FAILURE AND REPLACEMENT MONDAY NIGHT. CHANGE IN CAST (CHRISTOPHER LEE OUT). SCRIPT RE-STUCTURING CAUSING RETAKES AND ILLNESS OF RICHARD HARRIS ONE NIGHT 1 MARCH.’³¹ Croydon’s warning that modification of the action sequences would be necessary proved prescient. Another telex on 23 March reported: ‘PLEASE NOTE THAT UNDERWATER FIRE SEQUENCE, SCENES NUMBER 207-208a-209, ALTHOUGH STILL IN SCRIPT HAVE BEEN SIMPLIFIED IN SO FAR THAT THERE IS NO FIRE AND UNDERWATER SHOOTING.’³² Film Finances was not persuaded by the reports it was receiving from the location. Richard Soames, Film Finances’ joint managing-director, put Pieterse on notice: ‘IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT FAR TOO MUCH TIME IS BEING WASTED IN DISCUSSIONS ON THE FLOOR AND DURING THE TIME ALLOCATED TO SHOOTING. PLEASE CONVEY TO ALL PARTIES OUR CONCERN OVER LACK OF PROGRESS AND SCHEDULE STATUS OF PICTURE ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE CARIBBEAN STAR.’³³ By the end of March, Film Finances were considering exercising their contractual right to take over the production of the film: Soames flew to South Africa to assess the extent of the problems.³⁴

For some reason that is not apparent, Film Finances did not take over the film at this stage. Soames’s visit to the location nevertheless provided only temporary relief from a rapidly deteriorating situation. On 11 May Film Finances reminded Pieterse that ‘you are into the eleventh week of shooting and we have received just one cost statement … You have entered into an agreement to render this information which to date has not been complied with.’³⁵ On 19 May Film Finances notified Pieterse of their intention to take over the film ‘in view of your breach of the provisions of the Security Agreement between you and ourselves’.³⁶ Pieterse’s lawyer immediately replied that it ‘does not deem such notice proper or justifiable’.³⁷ Film Finances responded robustly in reminding Pieterse of his contractual obligations:

We have received your cable and are astounded at your attitude. We have continually complained at the lack of financial information relating to the production. To be informed at this late stage that the production cost is over budget in excess of $630,000 is, to say the least, totally inexcusable. We have also complained at the cuts and additions to the previously approved script without prior approval. These are breaches of the utmost gravity and we regard with the gravest concern any suggestion on your part that you would obstruct any intention on our part to exercise our rights to take over this production to ensure delivery of the film in the manner we have undertaken to do.³⁸

An important condition of providing a completion guarantee was that the guarantor required the producer to inform them of any major changes to the film that might affect the distribution contracts: distributors’ advances had been made in expectation of the film being delivered not only on schedule but also according to an agreed specification.

Film Finances formally notified Pieterse of their take-over of the film by letter on 23 May.³⁹ Pieterse – who had only recently assured Film Finances that the film was about to complete shooting – now replied to the effect that ‘unless you comply with your obligations to provide immediate funds, the picture will come to a standstill and you will not only be in breach to us but also to third parties and such a standstill could cause us and them substantial losses’.⁴⁰ This suggests that Pieterse thought it was the guarantor’s responsibility to pay for all over-costs: in fact the guarantee covered only unforeseen costs and was not a blank cheque to cover mismanagement of the production. The dispute between Film Finances and Pieterse played out through telexes. Film Finances told the producer to finish the film immediately: ‘YOUR TELEX TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY, ALL SHOOTING TO FINISH 28 MAY. RE-ARRANGE SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.’⁴¹ The production accountant replied that the film had run out of money and was not able to pay its bills on location: ‘MESSEL BAY CREDITORS SITUATION IS DESPERATE. IF SITUATION NOT RESOLVED IMMEDIATELY ENTIRE CREW WILL HAVE TO BE TOLD AND WORK WILL STOP.’⁴² Film Finances advanced £33,000 on 26 May so that Pieterse could pay the crew.

A dispute was also brewing between Pieterse and star Richard Harris, who had taken to corresponding by letter. Harris was now several weeks over his contracted period for the film. He wrote two letters to Pieterse on 27 May. The first complained that Pieterse had not fulfilled an offer made on 3 April to guarantee Harris a percentage of the film’s profits in return for waiving his overage (the amount that he was due for the time on the film beyond his contracted period): ‘Since that date you have mentioned it on two other occasions and two other occasions via Bob Porter. As of today’s date no representation has been made by you in connection with that percentage, so I am quite startled to hear from my agent, Mr Baum, that you have asked me to give up my weekly overages in lieu of a percentage.’⁴³ (An earlier letter from Pieterse to Harris confirms that Pieterse had made this offer: ‘It is and always has been my intention, which I hereby do, to assign 5% of the Producer’s net profits accruing from time to time to you or your nominee.’)⁴⁴ Harris’s second letter revealed another issue:

I had a phone call from John McMichael [Harris’s solicitor] informing me that Film Finances had made him aware of the fact that they had taken over the picture, that Ashley Lazarus was dismissed as director and that I was taking over the directorial responsibilities. I told John McMichael that I was not approached on this particular occasion to take over the directorial responsibilities of the film and was amazed on what information they could have made such an assumption and that he was to inform them instantly that (a) I was not aware of it and (b) even so, I would, as I have done on two previous occasions, reject it.⁴⁵

On this point there would seem to have been some miscommunication, and it is not evident from the paper (and telex) trail where this had arisen. Film Finances’ internal communications make no reference to wanting Harris to take over directing the film: indeed they would almost certainly have been opposed to any such course of action as they had a well-documented aversion to actor-directors following their experiences with Cornel Wilde on Lancelot and Guinevere and Peter Sellers taking over direction of The Bobo.

The dispute between Harris and Pieterse caused further delay to the completion of the film. Harris now holed up in his hotel room and refused to turn up to the set to shoot the one remaining sequence. As this was the action climax it was not a sequence that could be dropped. The daily production reports for the first week of June recorded repeatedly that Harris was ‘not accepting the call’. Film Finances had sent Robert Fennell to the location in an attempt to mediate. On 6 June Fennell wrote to Harris: ‘This letter confirms our verbal agreement that you agree to shoot the scenes in the hold tomorrow, being Tuesday, 7th June 1977, with the understanding that if by the evening of Tuesday, 7th June, you have not received a satisfactory reply concerning your overages from Film Finances Limited, you may insist on the corridor scenes being shot the following day.’⁴⁶ However, Harris continued not to accept the call. On 8 June Pieterse attempted to play the heavy:

We understand that you have stopped working and that you have indicated that you will not resume work until the alleged breach of the Artist Contract has been corrected. As you know there is a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged breach and if you were to prove correct, Artist will be paid and it can also seek damages.

You are hereby advised to report on set in fifteen minutes to resume shooting Sc. 85A in order to complete the sequence. You shall further be required to report on set as per the daily call sheet. For your easy reference, attached please find extract of Clause 27 of your contract.⁴⁷

Harris still refused to budge. His management agency Artist BV (who had a representative in attendance) replied that there ‘is no bona fide dispute concerning an alleged modification of the contract because there was no agreement modifying the contract’ and affirmed that ‘Richard Harris is and remains ready, willing and able to perform his services under the contract as soon as we have been paid the money owing to us under the contract’.⁴⁸ The following day Fennell reported back to Film Finances that ‘“RH” was given his call last night to shoot on the corridor set for 8am, 9 June. At 9.30am Brian Cook telephoned his hotel and was told that “RH” was asleep and had left instructions not to be awoken – he has still not appeared.’⁴⁹

A chaotic situation was still to get worse. It now transpired that the unit had not received the emergency completion monies advanced by Film Finances. Porter cabled on 8 June: ‘WE HAVE TRIED TO LOCATE 50,000 RAND SENT BY YOU FRIDAY 3 JUNE 1977 WITHOUT SUCCESS … NEED IMMEDIATELY RPT IMMEDIATELY 50,000 RAND PLUS 100,000 RAND, TODAY, WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE 1977. ALSO MONIES DUE AND PROMISED IN LONDON LAST WEEK OF 33,000 POUNDS NOT RECEIVED STOP.’⁵⁰ Film Finances’ bank (Lloyds) explained – incredulously it has to be said – that ‘the transfer could not be made before the holiday [the Whitsun Bank Holiday] as insufficient Rands were held to meet the payment’.⁵¹ An indication of how low morale had become among the crew by this time was that the daily call sheets were referring to the ‘Escape Committee’. Artist BV was now demanding immediate payment of Harris’s overages.⁵² On 10 June Film Finances transferred 70,000 Rand (£46,979) to South Africa and another $150,000 to the film’s production account in New York. On 13 June Pieterse reported that ‘we have reason to believe that Richard Harris intends to leave the country unless the overages are placed in escrow today’.⁵³ The production report for the same day recorded: ‘Unit told to return to the motel and line up special effects as Mr Harris had not appeared.’⁵⁴ On 15 June Fennell reported that Harris had agreed to waive his overages above $150,000 and to complete the picture in return for $20,000 in expenses and reimbursement of his hotel charges and telephone bill.⁵⁵ Film Finances instructed Pieterse: ‘INSIST YOU SHOOT BLOW UP HOLD FORTHWITH. ALL SHOOTING TO STOP AND UNIT TO RETURN HOME FORTHWITH.’⁵⁶ On 17 June Film Finances sent another 50,000 Rand to South Africa and $50,000 to New York. It would continue to make advances throughout post-production.

Salvaging Golden Rendezvous

The completion of principal photography of Golden Rendezvous was only the end of the beginning: a whole new set of problems were to arise in post-production. The most immediate of these was a dispute between Richard Harris and Film Finances. Harris’s solicitors averred that Richard Soames ‘in a telephone conversation with our Client made threats to our Client about his future career in the film business … You have also indicated to third parties that you would look very hard at giving a completion guarantee in respect of any film in which our Client appears, or words to that effect, thereby implying that our Client is not, by reason of his behaviour, a good and insurable risk.’⁵⁷ This was in all probability a reference to Euan Lloyd’s production of The Wild Geese (1978): Film Finances had guaranteed the film – a mercenary adventure shot in South Africa based on a novel by Daniel Carney – on the condition that Harris, who co-starred with Richard Burton and Roger Moore, placed half his salary in escrow, and that the director, Andrew McLaglen, was required to certify that Harris had duly fulfilled his contract before the escrow funds would be released.⁵⁸ Film Finances strenuously rejected the charge and told Harris’s solicitors that ‘we take the greatest possible exception to your suggestion that either you or your client can in any way influence the manner in which we conduct our business’: the matter went no further than an exchange of letters.⁵⁹

A more pressing issue was that Golden Rendezvous was incomplete as a film: the unit had returned from location without filming the pre-title sequence in which the villains steal a nuclear warhead (which they subsequently smuggle aboard the ship Caribbean Star). Pieterse – evidently concerned that the absence of the sequence would jeopardise the distribution contracts and therefore void the letters of credit against which he had raised the budget – wanted to shoot the sequence immediately upon returning to the United Kingdom: ‘ESSENTIAL THAT WE SHOOT OPENING SEQUENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR SCREENING TO RANK AND UNITED ARTISTS SOONEST.’⁶⁰ However, Film Finances refused to agree to any further expenditure: ‘AS ALREADY ADVISED BUDGET FOR OPENING SEQUENCE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO MEET IT.’⁶¹ Pieterse evidently struggled to accept that Film Finances were now calling the shots in regard to the completion of Golden Rendezvous. When he tried to extend Robert Porter’s associate producer contract, Film Finances blocked it and told Pieterse:

REFERENCE YOUR TELEX OF YESTERDAY’S DATE RE: PORTER CONTRACT. WE REPEAT, REPEAT THAT THIS CONTRACT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO US FOR APPROVAL AND WE TAKE GREAT EXCEPTION TO YOUR COMMENT. WE SUGGEST YOU TAKE COGNICANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS FILM HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN OVER BY FILM FINANCES AND THAT NEITHER YOU NOR ANY OF THE GOLDEN RENDEZVOUS COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACTS RELATING TO THIS PRODUCTION WHETHER INITIALLY OR BY WAY OF CONFIRMATION WITHOUT OUR PRIOR APPROVAL AND CONSENT.⁶²

Pieterse then attempted to circumvent Film Finances by enlisting the help of Arthur Davey, the production accountant of Golden Rendezvous. Davey, who had resigned from the picture for personal reasons, took great umbrage at this, telling Pieterse:

In 44 years of working in film production with many famous producers and administrators, I have never received such a disgusting and hypocritical letter.

Weeks ago I gave two weeks’ notice of termination of my services, and gave my reason that this production was affecting my family life and my health. I asked you to arrange a replacement as soon as possible, in order that I could hand over in a tidy manner. No replacement arrived, so, by arrangement with Film Finances, I continued on a daily basis.

Ever since this production started we have had financial problems, and I personally have suffered much humiliation, aggravation, indignities and even a request to ‘fire’ me when I was seriously ill.

Now, when after almost a miracle we look like having a saleable product, which was only achieved by the loyalty and goodwill of people like myself, you have the audacity to put me under duress to produce documents and threaten my livelihood. I wish to inform you that the records are in good order but statements required by Film Finances Ltd cannot be constructed until you provide the information recently requested by Mr W. Croft. ⁶³

In fact by this stage the financial arrangements of Golden Rendezvous were unravelling. Film Finances’ audit of the letters of credit held by the Chemical Bank revealed a shortfall of $161,250 in the production account: distributors’ credits for Venezuela ($75,000), Hong Kong ($41,250), Iran ($30,000) and Israel ($15,000) were missing. ‘The question then arises who has taken the $161,250. Doubtless Mr Pieterse will be able to tell us.’⁶⁴

At the same time as investigating the missing funds, Film Finances had to decide what to do about the pre-title sequence. Pieterse – who was keen to blame anyone other than himself for the problems – told Film Finances that ‘the film is confusing to some who have seen it in its pre-answer print stage. Rank Film Distributors have questioned the fact that the opening of the film is not in accordance with the screenplay. I anticipate that the United Artists screenings on Monday will have the same reaction.’⁶⁵ Film Finances sought an independent verdict from producer Kevin Francis of Tyburn Film Productions:

Having screened the picture, I have to tell you that I think it’s, if not the worst picture I have ever seen, certainly in the top three. I cannot believe that, in its present, or for that matter any, state the picture has any theatrical potential in the North American market …

You are in so deep at the moment, and I think you really must consider investing, possibly another £10,000 to £15,000, by removing the editor and everybody else involved with the picture, employing a really first-class editor who has experience of ‘salvage’, a really first-class dubbing editor who can do something with the atrocious sound and re-edit it in such a way as the film will, at least, be marketable to US Network Television. The picture can never be made great, I don’t think it could even be made good, but I do think that it could be made marketable. If you let Pieterse, or anybody else for that matter, into the marketplace with the picture as it currently stands, you are never going to get a cent!⁶⁶

The outcome of the preview screenings was that United Artists rejected the film outright: this left it with no distributor for the United States and much of the rest of the world. Rank Film Distributors did accept it and released it in the United Kingdom in December 1977: it was the top box-office attraction in London in the first week of December.⁶⁷ Most reviews, however, were on the tepid side of lukewarm. The US trade bible Variety, reviewing its London release, felt that ‘Golden Rendezvous is fool’s gold. Even when seen in the context of clinkers like Puppet on a Chain, Caravan to Vaccares and When Eight Bells Toll, it’s still the phoniest and least exciting Alistair MacLean adaptation to date.’⁶⁸

The problem for Film Finances was whether – having taken over the production – they should now invest more money in attempting to salvage Golden Rendezvous in an attempt to make it more marketable in the United States. Film Finances contracted Kevin Francis to supervise the shooting of the pre-title sequence: the job of directing went to his father Freddie Francis, an experienced cinematographer and director. The sequence was scheduled for two days at Twickenham Studios on 15–16 December 1977. In what was becoming a comedy of errors, the additional shooting overran its schedule by six days. Two days were lost due to a faulty generator at the studio; a third day was abandoned ‘due to thick fog’; a fourth day ‘did not risk additional expenditure due to unsatisfactory weather forecast’; there was some shooting on the fifth day until it was ‘cut short by downpour’; a sixth day was affected by a faulty camera lens. Following the Christmas studio closure, the sequence was completed on 29 December. As Kevin Francis wrote to Richard Soames: ‘I appreciate that when you asked me to undertake this job you said it would be a thankless task, but not that it was jinxed!’⁶⁹ The shooting of the pre-title sequence cost £24,423, which brought Film Finances’ total commitments to approximately £670,000. Francis – who had his own dispute with Twickenham Studios over the faulty equipment – told Film Finances that ‘we have done our very best, under the most difficult circumstances, and that I have been able to mitigate the disasters we incurred and also how pleased RFD (and I understand United Artists) are with the Sequence’.⁷⁰ The new sequence was added to the film for its nationwide UK release in March 1978: Screen International reported that ‘its new audience will see a longer, and hopefully more comprehensible, version than the one seen, and panned by the critics, in London’.⁷¹ However, Rank Film Distributors reported distributor’s receipts of only £31,139 from Britain and £4,206 from overseas – amounts wholly insufficient to cover the distribution costs.⁷²

However, it was the absence of a US distributor that dealt a fatal blow to the box office of Golden Rendezvous – and therefore Film Finances’ prospects of recovering their advances. Film Finances appointed Hemdale Film Distributors as their agent in the ‘disposal’ of US rights in the film. Hemdale had started out as a talent management agency before moving into film production and distribution in the 1970s: it had a diverse portfolio but was unable to do much with Golden Rendezvous. Attempts to secure a sale to one of the major television networks were unsuccessful: ‘WE HAVE NOW HEARD FROM ALL THREE NETWORKS. NONE ARE WILLING TO LICENCE THE FILM FOR NETWORK TELEVISION. WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND SHOULD DISCUSS ACCEPTING THE AIP OFFER US.’⁷³ (The production file on Golden Rendezvous does not reveal any further details about an offer from American International Pictures.) The film was also offered to – and declined by – all the major US studio-distributors as well as independents Avco Embassy, Allied Artists, New World Pictures, the Atlantic Releasing Corporation and In-Flight Motion Pictures.⁷⁴ In October 1978 Hemdale reported that Pieterse said he had negotiated a television sale with the Time-Life Television Syndicate.⁷⁵ Time-Life specialised in direct sales of books, records and videos: the deal was reported in the press but not consummated.⁷⁶ Film Finances felt obliged to remind Pieterse ‘that the selling of the film is in the hands of Fred Schneier and, therefore, you should do nothing in this matter without Fred’s knowledge and consent’.⁷⁷ However, yet another twist in the seemingly never-ending saga of Golden Rendezvous was about to emerge.

The South African controversy

In November 1978 a story broke that South Africa’s Department of Information had used public funds to finance ‘propaganda operations’ on behalf of the apartheid government.⁷⁸ The revelation emerged when Supreme Court Judge Mr Justice Anton, in the course of investigating currency exchange controls, uncovered evidence that a secret slush fund had been used to set up a pro-apartheid newspaper called The Citizen. A commission of inquiry subsequently found that Prime Minister B. J. Vorster, the Minister of Information Dr Connie Mulder, and Head of the Bureau of State Security General Hendrick van den Bergh were all implicated. Vorster, who had become President of South Africa in 1978, was compelled to resign.

Andre Pieterse was also caught up in what the press soon dubbed a ‘South African Watergate’ in that he was on the board of directors of Thor Communications, a front company set up by the Department of Information ‘through which it could function without the constraints of proper and normal government control’.⁷⁹ Specifically it was reported that Pieterse had been given the sum of 825,000 Rand (£435,000) in order to invest in building a Black film industry in South Africa in association with South African businessman Jan Van Zyl Albert. However, the money had instead been used by Pieterse to meet the escalating over-costs of Golden Rendezvous. Pieterse initially denied this: he demanded a retraction from journalist Quentin Falk when Falk wrote an article for Screen International repeating what had already been reported in the national press.⁸⁰ But it turned out that the story was substantially correct. Pieterse explained that he borrowed money from the Department of Information to use as security for the loan from the Chemical Bank:

I explained to Rhoodie the situation, the fact that I would be personally ruined, that the industry could be badly damaged, and talked him into employing 825,000 Rand, which at that stage was on fixed deposit with Barclays Bank, to allow me to employ it as security for the production loan. I was convinced, and I put it to him, that this situation would not be called, because the film was properly insured against completion, and when we completed it, we were certain that the foreign, American rights would be sold for at least enough money to meet the obligations of production, then this 825,000 Rand would serve only as security till that time. Unfortunately for me the production got further out of hand, and the film far exceeded the budget.⁸¹

Pieterse later confirmed to Film Finances that he had borrowed money from the South African government: ‘Pieterse says that he has to receive a certain basic minimum in order to pay back the South African Government loan (this is the first time I think this has been mentioned and I do not know the amount).’⁸² William Croft, the chartered accountant whom Film Finances had appointed as their receiver for Golden Rendezvous, observed with dry understatement: ‘I cannot believe that this sort of publicity is going to be helpful in making a sale in North America.’⁸³

The South African revelation came at a time when Golden Rendezvous was already the subject of multiple lawsuits. Pieterse was suing Harris for breach of contract. He now blamed the over-costs on Golden Rendezvous on Harris’s excessive drinking: ‘Harris was drinking a bottle of vodka a day, which resulted in my having to remain on set all day to insure nothing further got out of hand.’⁸⁴ While Harris had a not entirely undeserved reputation as a hellraiser, however, there is no corroborating evidence that his drinking had caused delays to this film. Pieterse told Film Finances ‘that should he succeed in extracting money from Harris, then he regarded that as his (Pieterse’s) money’. Croft retorted: ‘I do not know who actually is suing Harris, but I reckon that any money recovered from Harris must be treated as an effective reduction in the Production costs of Golden Rendezvous and therefore belongs to Film Finances.’⁸⁵ In the event Pieterse dropped his claim against Harris, though not before a warrant had been issued in Pretoria for Harris’s arrest. Harris – who learned about the warrant watching television while on location in South Africa for the film Game for Vultures (1979) – responded by holding a press conference in which he announced his intention to sue Pieterse for defamation in Johannesburg and for breach of contract in New York.⁸⁶ In the meantime Ashley Lazarus was also suing Pieterse on the grounds that his exclusion from the post-production of Golden Rendezvous had damaged his professional reputation.

It is a moot point whether it proved impossible to sell Golden Rendezvous in America due to the South African connection or because it was simply a bad film. Film Finances blamed the changing film culture in America in the late 1970s: ‘Additional reasons for the film not going in the States apart from the political situation are that everybody is now requiring soap operas and women’s films, and there is no market for the action type film.’⁸⁷ Pieterse sought in vain to renegotiate his agreement with Film Finances. In December 1978 he offered to buy out Film Finances for $150,000 in cash with the balance to be provided from future receipts: Film Finances rejected this offer on the grounds that it ‘is obviously an absurd suggestion because it puts us in no better position than we are already and simply allows us to collect certain revenues that would have been due to us anyway’.⁸⁸ Pieterse then made another offer: to buy Film Finances’ share of the rights in Golden Rendezvous outright for $750,000.⁸⁹ Again this was rejected, Film Finances reminding Pieterse that ‘you were told this was unacceptable’.⁹⁰ However, Film Finances did agree to limit their claim on the film’s receipts to $700,000 on the proviso that the outstanding amount would be paid within twelve months.⁹¹ In April 1979 Film Finances’ agency agreement with Hemdale expired. Croft wrote to Hemdale’s Fred Schneier: ‘I am naturally very sorry that in spite of your efforts, we were not able to make a sale in the States … Fortunately, I do not think the film will date and it might perhaps do it good if it were put to bed for a while.’⁹²

With a theatrical sale looking ever less likely, Film Finances agreed to let Pieterse re-edit the film with a view to selling it as a television movie: this meant cutting it to between 95–100 minutes in order to fit a two-hour television slot including commercial breaks. Film Finances agreed to share the cost of re-editing with Pieterse provided the total cost did not exceed $50,000: this was to be deducted from the receipts.⁹³ On 12 April 1979 Pieterse cabled Croft: ‘AS DISCUSSED WITH RICHARD SOAMES WE START RE-EDIT AND RE-TITLING ON APRIL 30. NEGOTIATIONS WITH US PARTIES PROGRESSING SATISFACTORILY.’⁹⁴ Some 14 minutes were cut – including most of the pre-title sequence for which Film Finances had paid nearly £25,000 – so that the running time ‘is now an acceptable 97 minutes’.⁹⁵

In September 1979 Pieterse reported that United Artists – the original distributor who had declined the film for theatrical release – ‘agree that the film is much improved and he says their reaction is most promising’.⁹⁶ UA were prepared to offer up to $1.5 million to offer the film to one of the television networks as a ‘movie of the week’: its title – perhaps to detach it from previous negative associations – had been changed to the more prosaic Nuclear Terror. Pieterse was keen to conclude the deal in order to repay the South African government, but then made a further demand that Film Finances found unacceptable:

Pieterse then went on to say that he was under pressure from the South African Government to make repayment of the Government loan of $800,000 made to Golden Rendezvous Corporation and that the net inflow to his company from the UA/TV deal was quite insufficient to pay off the South African government. Pieterse then asked for a 10% commission to come to him to pay off the government loan and when I asked on what amount the 10% would be based he said it was the net amount to the company, namely the sum of $1,100,000.⁹⁷

While that arrangement was unacceptable, Film Finances were evidently now willing to cut their losses. On 26 September they agreed to Pieterse’s cash offer of $600,000 ‘in full settlement of our rights in the proceeds of exploitation of this film’.⁹⁸ Pieterse replied: ‘APPRECIATE YOUR GESTURE AND WISH TO APOLOGISE FOR HAVING LOST MY TEMPER. UNITED ARTISTS AGREEMENT DELIVERED BY LASKY TODAY.’⁹⁹

This was still not quite the end of the matter for Film Finances. Pieterse delayed making the agreed payment. In February 1980 Pieterse asked for an extension to the previous twelve-month agreement. Croft reported: ‘AP desperately wishes a renewal of some sort. I said his behaviour did not warrant it, but if he would now provide me with a proper accounting, etc, I would always be open to re-negotiate’.¹⁰⁰ The issue now was that Pieterse had failed to provide Film Finances with statements of distributors’ receipts: these were required as the guarantee agreement stipulated that the guarantor ranked ahead of the producer for recovery. In the event Film Finances agreed to extend the payment period for another twelve months in return for ‘an absolute understanding that Pieterse agrees unequivocally to personally guarantee [the] shortfall between US$700,000 and amounts actually received or receivable by Film Finances’.¹⁰¹ There seems to have been one repayment of $350,000 in June 1980.¹⁰² Film Finances eventually had to write off its advances on Golden Rendezvous: the company estimated it had lost around $2 million on the film.¹⁰³

Conclusions

The production history of Golden Rendezvous was unique and wholly exceptional: it was certainly not representative of the many hundreds of films guaranteed by Film Finances that passed off without incident or controversy. However, it was this very exceptionality that makes Golden Rendezvous such a valuable case study of the operation of completion guarantees. It demonstrates an extreme version of what is known colloquially in the United Kingdom as Sod’s Law: that if something can go wrong it will go wrong. It was not unusual for location pictures to experience delays and over-costs: this had happened many times for Film Finances and was a potential hazard taken into account when providing a guarantee. Naval pictures tended to be especially problematic, as Film Finances had learned with The Gift Horse (1952) and The Valiant (1962).¹⁰⁴ And Andre Pieterse was certainly not the only producer incapable of effective cost control: Harry Saltzman, Alexander Salkind, Elliott Kastner and Michael Klinger also fell into this category. However, the combination of location difficulties, mismanagement of production, a star ‘not accepting the call’ and political controversy experienced in the case of Golden Rendezvous was quite possibly unique. And the extent of Film Finances’ liabilities, amounting to around 50 per cent of the original budget, was unprecedented.

Yet in the event Golden Rendezvous would prove to be no more than a blip for Film Finances. The guarantor’s strategy of providing guarantees for films for the international market in the 1970s had hitherto been successful: it had recorded profits of £120,261 in 1974, £133,478 in 1975 and £166,912 in 1976. In 1978 it experienced a setback on account of Golden Rendezvous: a loss for the year of £237,000 was attributed to ‘having to make payment of an exceptionally large claim made under the Guarantee of Completion’. However, Film Finances was resilient enough by this stage to ride out even a large loss on a single film. In his annual report to shareholders, Robert Garrett acknowledged ‘that it is our business to undertake such Risks and from time to time it is inevitable that such claims will occur’.¹⁰⁵ The company bounced back in 1979, which was the ‘most successful year to date’ – this was due largely to an upturn in the number of films guaranteed – while 1980 was ‘an even more successful year than the previous one’.¹⁰⁶ By the end of the decade Film Finances had expanded the scope of its operation to include providing guarantees for films in Canada and Australia as well as Britain and Europe. In the 1980s it would finally move into Hollywood when it provided guarantees for American independent films including Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Terminator (1984), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), Highlander (1985) and Platoon (1986). There were further trials ahead for Film Finances: the problems of Golden Rendezvous would be eclipsed by the debâcle of Terry Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988). That remains another story for another day.

Acknowledgements

My thanks as ever to the London office of Film Finances for generously allowing access to their archive, especially to David Korda (chairman), James Shiras (co-managing-director) and Thoko Malvene (PA to the managing directors). An earlier version of this article was presented as part of a pre-constituted panel at the conferences of the British Association of Film and Television Studies (University of Birmingham) and the International Association of Media and History (Northumbria University) in 2019: thanks to my fellow panellists Llewella Chapman and Jenny Stewart and to the conference participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James Chapman

James Chapman is Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. His book The Money Behind the Screen: A History of British Film Finance, 1945-1985 is published by Edinburgh University Press in 2022.

Notes

1 The Film Finances Archive was the subject of a special issue of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television (volume 34, no. 1) in 2014.

2 ‘This Guarantee Means Delivery’, Kinematograph Weekly, 18 December 1952, p. 23.

3 Action of the Tiger (MGM, dir. Terence Young, 1957) exceeded its budget of £187,734 by £60,649; Lancelot and Guinevere (Universal, dir. Cornel Wilde, 1963) was budgeted at £494,746 and exceeded that figure by £196,224; The Bobo (Warner Bros, dir. Robert Parish, 1967) went £131,139 over its budget of £986,061; and Lock Up Your Daughters (Columbia, dir. Peter Coe, 1969) cost £878,986 against a budget of £755,423 which had been adjusted upwards from the original estimate submitted to Film Finances. Film Finances did not necessarily pick up the entirety of the budget overage – this would depend on which items were deemed legitimate additional costs rather than so-called ‘improvements’ made by the producer or director that had not been included in the original budget – though in each of these cases it contributed the larger part of the over-costs.

4 The Guns of Navarone (Columbia, dir. J. Lee Thompson, 1961), The Satan Bug (United Artists, dir. John Sturges, 1965), Ice Station Zebra (MGM, dir. John Sturges, 1968), Where Eagles Dare (MGM, dir. Brian G. Hutton, 1968), Puppet on a Chain (Scotia-Barber, dir. Geoffrey Reeve, 1970), When Eight Bells Toll (Rank Film Distributors, dir. Etienne Perier, 1971), Fear is the Key (Anglo-EMI Film Distributors, dir. Michael Tuchner, 1972), Caravan to Vaccares (Rank Film Distributors, dir. Geoffrey Reeve, 1974), Breakheart Pass (United Artists, dir. Tom Gries, 1975), Force 10 From Navarone (Columbia, dir. Guy Hamilton, 1978), and Bear Island (Columbia-EMI-Warner, dir. Don Sharp, 1979).

5 ‘The Mystery of Movie Financing’, Los Angeles Times, 4 June 1968, p. F1.

6 ‘Euan Lloyd’s link with Louis L’Amour’, CinemaTV Today, 28 October 1972, p. 6.

7 Film Finances Archive (hereafter FFA) General Correspondence Box 43: Robert Garrett to Kingston Film Productions, 12 September 1967.

8 ‘Financial Close-Up of a Movie Cliff-Hanger’, New York Times, 1 April 1968, p. 69.

9 ‘Financing the Films’, New York Times, 2 July 1970, p. 100.

10 Perfect Friday (Chevron Pictures, dir. Peter 1970), The McMasters (Chevron Pictures, dir. Alf Kjeli, 1970) and Murphy’s War (Paramount, dir. Peter Yates, 1971)

11 The Last Grenade (Cinema Releasing Corporation, dir. Gordon Flemyng, 1970), Say Hello to Yesterday (Cinema Releasing Corporation, dir. Alvin Rakoff, 1971) and The Statue (Cinema Releasing Corporation, dir. Rod Amateau, 1971).

12 FFA General Correspondence Box 76: Cinerama News press release: ‘Fourteen Million Dollar Boost for British Film Production’, no date (c. January 1970).

13 Ibid: Robert Garrett to Peter Hope, 26 April 1962.

14 FFA General Correspondence Box 43: Robert Garrett to Denis Holt, 25 January 1967.

15 Ibid: Note – ‘Battle of Britain’, 9 September 1966.

16 FFA Realised Film 503: Cabaret: Robert Garrett to Lee Steiner (ABC), 20 August 1970.

17 Ibid: John Croydon to Garrett, 6 August 1970.

18 Gold (Allied Artists, dir. Peter Hunt, 1974), The Wind and the Lion (Columbia, dir. John Milius, 1975), The Man Who Would Be King (Columbia, dir. John Huston, 1975) and Shout at the Devil (Hemdale International, dir. Peter Hunt, 1976).

19 FFA Realised Film 558: Gold: Michael Klinger to Robert Garrett, 29 January 1974.

20 FFA Realised Film 579: The Man Who Would Be King: Richard McWhorter to Richard Soames, 17 March 1975.

21 FFA Realised Film 583: Shout at the Devil: Garrett to Bernard Smith, 17 June 1975.

22 Ibid: R. G. Anticoni to Ron Smith, 20 June 1975.

23 ‘MGM-Filmways Acquires “The Golden Rendezvous”’, Boxoffice, 6 May 1968, p. 12.

24 ‘All-Time Rental Champs’, Variety, 11 May 1977, p. 8.

25 FFA Realised Film 600: Golden Rendezvous: Agreement dated 23 July 1973.

26 Ibid: Agreement dated 25 September 1974.

27 Ibid: Agreement between Film Trust Overseas and Film Finances.

28 Ibid: ‘Golden Rendezvous’: Schedule of Overseas Distribution Agents.

29 Ibid: Rendezvous Film Productions: ‘Golden Rendezvous’ – Production Budget.

30 Ibid: John Croydon to Robert Garrett, 16 February 1977.

31 Ibid: Douglas Twiddy to Richard Soames, 5 March 1977.

32 Ibid: Robert Porter to Soames. 23 March 1977.

33 Ibid: Soames to Andre Pieterse, 25 March 1977.

34 Ibid: Film Finances to Pieterse, 28 March 1977.

35 Ibid: Film Finances to Pieterse, 11 May 1977.

36 Ibid: Film Finances to Rendezvous Film Productions, 19 May 1977.

37 Ibid: Bob Lasky to Ron Aikin, 19 May 1977.

38 Ibid: Film Finances to Lasky, 20 May 1977.

39 Ibid: Soames to Rendezvous Film Productions, 23 May 1977.

40 Ibid: Andre Pieterse to Film Finances, 23 May 1977.

41 Ibid: Film Finances to Bob Porter, 24 May 1977.

42 Ibid: Arthur Davey to Film Finances, 26 May 1977.

43 Ibid: Richard Harris to Andre Pieterse, 27 May 1977 (1).

44 Ibid: Pieterse to Harris, n.d.

45 Ibid: Harris to Pieterse, 27 May 1977 (2).

46 Ibid: Robert Fennell to Harris, 6 June 1977.

47 Ibid: Pieterse to Harris, 8 June 1977.

48 Ibid: Artist BV to Pieterse, 8 June 1977.

49 Ibid: Fennell to Film Finances, 9 June 1977.

50 Ibid: Robert Porter to Soames, 8 June 1977.

51 Ibid: R. G. Smithers to W. A. Coft, 8 June 1977.

52 Ibid: Baum to Ron Aikin, 10 June 1977.

53 Ibid: Pieterse to Soames, 13 June 1977.

54 Ibid: Daily Production Diary, 13 June 1977.

55 Ibid: Fennell to Film Finances, 15 June 1977.

56 Ibid: Robert Garrett to Pieterse, 15 June 1977.

57 Ibid: Wright & Webb, Syrett & Sons to Film Finances, 6 July 1977.

58 FFA Realised Film 603: The Wild Geese: Donald Barof to Euan Lloyd, 12 September 1977.

59 FFA Realised Film 600: Film Finances to Wright & Webb, Syrett & Sons, 8 July 1977.

60 Ibid: Andre Pieterse to Richard Soames, 30 June 1977.

61 Ibid: Soames to Pieterse, 30 June 1977.

62 Ibid: Film Finances to Pieterse, 23 September 1977.

63 Ibid: Arthur Davey to Pieterse, 31 October 1977.

64 Ibid: ‘Golden Rendezvous’ – Note by William Croft, 14 October 1977.

65 Ibid: Pieterse to Film Finances, 18 November 1977.

66 Ibid: Kevin Francis to Soames, 19 November 1977.

67 ‘“Rendezvous” is Golden’, Screen International, 10 December 1977, p. 2.

68 Variety, 14 December 1977, p. 13.

69 FFA Realised Film 600: Kevin Francis to Soames, 30 December 1977.

70 Ibid: Francis to Soames, 24 February 1978.

71 ‘New-look “Golden Rendezvous”’, Screen International, 4 February 1978, p. 20.

72 FFA Realised Film 600: Rank Film Distributors Ltd: ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 22 September 1978.

73 Ibid: Fred Schneier to William Croft, 5 January 1978.

74 Ibid: Pieterse to Richard Soames, 28 September 1978.

75 Ibid: Schneier to Ron Aikin, 5 October 1978.

76 ‘The Celluloid Scandal’, The Spectator, 25 November 1978, p. 8.

77 FFA Realised Film 600: William Croft to Pieterse, 14 November 1978.

78 ‘The newspaper scandal Botha cannot brush off’, The Sunday Times, 5 November 1978, p. 9.

79 ‘Pieterse in South Africa scandal’, Screen International, 11 November 1978, p. 1.

80 FFA Realised Film 600: Andre Pieterse to Quentin Falk, 15 November 1978.

81 ‘The Celluloid Scandal’, p. 8.

82 FFA Realised Film 600: Note by William Croft – ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 11 September 1979.

83 Ibid: Croft to Schneier, 14 November 1978.

84 ‘Pieterse in South Africa scandal’, p. 1.

85 FFA Realised Film 600: William Croft to Ron Aikin, 24 November 1978.

86 ‘“Golden Rendezvous” Row – Harris to issue suits’, Screen International, 2 December 1978, p. 11.

87 FFA Realised Film 600: Croft: ‘Notes of a meeting with Andre Pieterse as held on Friday 2nd June 1979’, 6 June 1978.

88 Ibid: Croft to Richard Soames, 6 December 1978.

89 Ibid: Pieterse to Croft, 24 January 1979.

90 Ibid: Croft to Pieterse, 7 February 1979.

91 Ibid: Croft to Film Finances, 2 March 1979.

92 Ibid: Croft to Schneier, 3 April 1979.

93 Ibid: Pieterse to Soames, 26 March 1979.

94 Ibid: Pieterse to Croft, 12 April 1979.

95 Ibid: Croft to Soames, 31 June 1979.

96 Ibid: Note by William Croft – ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 11 September 1979.

97 Ibid: Memo by William Croft – ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 20 September 1979.

98 Ibid: Richard Soames to Bob Lasky, 26 September 1979.

99 Ibid: Pieterse to Soames, 27 September 1979.

100 Ibid: Note by William Croft – ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 14 February 1980.

101 Ibid: Croft to Lasky, 20 February 1982.

102 Ibid: Lasky to Croft, 27 June 1980.

103 Ibid: Memo – ‘Golden Rendezvous’, 20 September 1979.

104 The Gift Horse (Independent Film Distributors, dir. Compton Bennett, 1952), The Valiant (United Artists, dir. Roy Ward Baker, 1962).

105 FFA General Papers Box 74: Chairman’s speech for the adjourned twenty-seventh Annual General Meeting, 1 September 1978.

106 Ibid: Chairman’s speech for the twenty-ninth Annual General Meeting, 12 October 1979; Chairman’s speech for the thirtieth Annual General Meeting, 3 October 1980.