communal recognition of a social problem. I felt very attached to the film as I was taken along this rough journey of oppression, hatred, ignorance and fear. The public absorbed the film in many different ways, mostly agreeably. Women and feminists felt the film was encouraging women to speak out and seek justice. The only negative reviews I could find were by men. I think this is understandable as they are more likely to have a problem with the films politics. Most negative reviews praised the film in some way yet had a problem with Asta's feminist role and felt the film entertained feminist points of view. The majority of the public, especially the women, loved Shame. In central Sydney it was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1989 (Crofts sites Parer 1990: 179). Packed out theatres were known to clap and cheer in support of the women. It also gained an important role in the overseas market. When Jodrell and Furness promoted the film in the US it really hit a nerve. Furness claims that the women who saw Shame felt it was all too tragically familiar stating that she was almost seen as a rape counsellor (cited in Croft 1998: 179). The films American distributor, Majorike Skouras reported a screening where radical feminists urged men to leave the theatre (Crofts 1998: 57). Although Asta did have a boyfriend in the film, feminist took it on board as their film of the year. They loved Asta, who was a tough independent woman who stood up to the male preconceptions of a women's place in society. Yet the film was not produced for the feminist point of view. This was Steve Jodrell's reflection for the film "Why do people subscribe to community attitudes about rape? Why should the person who is raped immediately be treated with suspicion? (Cinema papers 1998 ) There are many factors that should encourage sceptics to look beyond the feminist's discourse to see the real problem underneath. Firstly, a male directs the film. His vision was of an action adventure film, in the true genre of a western. Secondly Shame is now used as a class text to help understand and portray the consequences of rape and the mentality of some communities. There are two central male characters that also encourage a non-feminist reading of the film. This is important, especially as a class text so that male viewers have someone to relate to. Tony Curits has a strong role in the film, as he continues to strengthen his relationship with Lizzie. Ross, the roo shooter, is also portrayed differently from the towns' lads. Shame was faced with pressure and criticism as it made its way to the big screen. It had trouble being funded for the original story and was unable to compete in the AFI awards. Shame was written by Beverly Blakenship and Michael Brindley in 1981. When they sought funding for the film they were encouraged to change the script. The UAA a Perth Finance company and the US encouraged them to add more graphic material. They wanted to change the lead to a man, have the rape scene present and make the men more prominent. They encouraged Blankenship and Brindley to have a male hero for Asta to love and to blow the boys head of with a gun, whilst he was raping Lizzie. The scriptwriters got support from Barron Films, and the UAA finally funded the film for $1.6 million dollars without the script changing. For Shame the biggest disappointment was being unable to compete in the Australian Film institute awards. It had been entered in 1987 then withdrawn due to poor print quality and therefore deemed ineligible. 'Shame should have scooped the pool at the 1988 AFI award...The film's box-office career undoubltly suffered as a result' (Crofts cites Stratton 1993:7)