A-listers receive development funding

Wow, FIVE love stories.

“A-listers receive development funding”

So what’s the assertion or implication of your headline?

Is it if you’re proven to be reasonably successful you’re no longer eligible for support? or is it, “hooray, we’re going for a bit more business”.

If you were running a business – and while Screen Australia is a government agency it still must continually prove itself to be a prudent business manager – and you wanted your business to be sustainable, what investments would you make?

Thanks for reply Miguel.

It does beg the question, however, why use the term “A-listers”.

Also, there wasn’t much of a story really.

It actually sounds more like you were having 2 bob each way.

Which is all very interesting MG given that SA is currently not accepting submissions from “not so high profile fillmakers” – correct – simply not accepting – furthermore those who have termerity too challenge prevailing view that local 4.5% of local AUS market is acceptable will be sent to SA & SQ commications Covertry – as I can tesify.
How does this work?

Brian- If I were running a business? Well I wouldn’t put money into A Heartbeat Away for starters, so we’ve saved $7million there.. and I’d try and increase the short film completion fund so new talent has a chance of getting on the radar, the current amount is a joke and I wouldn’t keep giving money to people who have a good track record of making poor quality productions that aren’t innovative, interesting or remotely what and audience might want to see. The thing is Brian its sustainable for those that keep their snouts in the trough..for those that can’t muzzle in, “the industry” looks like a taxpayer funded amusement park for the connected. And if I asked for Proven Criteria, I’d make that criteria apply to everybody, not just those who know the secret handshake and wink…like yourself

Oh Brian…It is A Listers..call it what it is, don’t be ashamed and embarrassed, you’re in the velvet lounge…enjoy it. The rest of us are just “Unproven Criteria Morons” without an original narrative thought to our D-List names.

MULL BURN
Producer: TBA
Writers: Andy Horne, Chris Webster
Director: TBA
Log-line: Three Aussie mates jeopardise their futures by embarking on an urban odyssey to score a bag of green, in a city which is dry.
Synopsis: It is a period of great dryness. The distribution of green to the suburbs of MELBOURNE is under threat. A crackdown, enforced by Health Minister Richard Rogers-Witt, has made it difficult for loyal stoners to get high. Ignoring their immediate troubles, three mates led by Stephen Ash venture out on an epic journey hoping to restore green to the city.

Above comments reassuring – least now aware not alone in holding ‘unwelcome radical views’.

Hi Doug, Jim and Ford Fairlane (I’m an Holden man myself but have always loved the purr of a Ford V8 and the luxury or a Fairgy!)

I’m not an A-Lister and certainly not reclining in any velvet lounge!

I was asking the question/s of;

a) what’s the implication of the term A-Lister and if there was not meant to be any implication why use such a loaded term, and
b) what’s wrong with investing with companies that have a track record.

MG rightly pointed out that ‘rest of the story makes it clear that a number of emerging and not-so-high-profile filmmakers have also received funding’ (which I also responded to) but denied any intending any negative implication in using the term A-Lister which he has every right to do in such a debate which I respect whether or not I agree with it.

Yes I have worked for a government agency but I’ve also worked the other side of the fence, not just in film but for several other arts forms and organisations and in a few different capacities. I can also say that I or the org I have been working for, has been on the receiving end of knockbacks from government agencies and other entities (ABC, producers, artistic directors etc).

Obviously any organisation cannot be everything to everyone and as such there will always be disappointment for those who miss out, but I would also contend that the funding agencies information regarding their objectives, policies and procedures are readily available but unfortunately many people either don’t bother to find them and read them and some would seem even prefer to ignore them.

Of course this information can always be improved and similarly their processes can also be improved, however, to contend that there are secret handshakes or other dubious practices is quite wrong and inappropriate. If you are that dismayed with the way things work then maybe you should consider another vocation.

I’m all for critical appraisal and informed debate but not endless whingeing. I’d also love to know where the ‘unwelcome radical views’ line came from FF.

I think the the real problem we are seeing in the film industry, especially over the last 10-20 years is money being handed out to teams that don’t have the track record, they might have had films produced but when you appraise the productions in question you see some reasonably poor product…that is further rewarded with funding. Its this approach that leads to cynical productions like ‘A Hearbeat Away”, which nobody has stepped forward to explain how they “got it so wrong” and why? So an opportunity to learn and to “out shocking development judgement” isn’t analyzed and the argument that what we’re involved in is a craps game…which might be correct to some degree, but in this day and age I’d rather see funding bodies punt on a few darkhorses than some seasoned professionals who turned out to be full of bullshit and cynicism, it might pitch like feel good..but its simply cynically and cliche riddled.
I don’t want to see filmmakers like that continually rewarded in this country. If Screen Australian blame the Producers, then why keep handing them money?
As an industry professional told me the other night, within the first three minutes you could tell A Heartbeat Away was crap…the first three minutes? How long was that film in development, guided by who? When you add it up it is quite wrong and inappropriate..shockingly so. So why are we making films like that in this country? Why? Why not punt on ambitious talent with a crazy idea, give three teams 1.5million each instead on $7-8million sunk into one cynical hole. There’s a film making revolution going on being driven by accessible technology. I think the industry continues to seem like a taxpayer funded amusement park to most people..we allow entry to a few who tick all the boxes, but for most trying to forge a career its a shit fight.
To suggest that dubious practices and an “in-club” doesn’t exist to some degree Brian is a slap in the face to all those who have at least ten years of experience under their belts and are old enough to have witnessed some shonky deals play out. I don’t say hang your hat on that and indulge in a whinge fest but this forum has been rightly set up for those who wish to instigate debate and discussion and to suggest everything is “A-Okay” and there’s nothing to see here..move along..well Brian you are simply living in a delusion…or denial.

This is gold though Brian, from a man who has worked across the board in arts funding:

If you are that dismayed with the way things work then maybe you should consider another vocation.

I am dismayed at “the way things work”…and won’t be considering another vocation, I’ll just keep trying to keep the dialogue open for improvement.

have a read

http://www.theage.com.au/opini.....1dsud.html

PS (Who the hell knows what Ford Fairlane is talking about? Or Chris Webster)

@ Brian.
Unwelcome Radical Views – part 1.

“Change prevailing emphasis from ‘telling our stories’ (myths) into commercial fillmaking must be approached & viewed as a ‘commercial enterprise’.

‘Only model that will provide AUS with a competitive & vibrant commercial film sector (jobs) is the free market one’.

“Developement of any innitative (model) be a Federal not state responsibility’.

‘Establishment via ATO guidelines of a ‘commercial fillmaking fund’ within AUS
financial & public sector. (even if it comes in under current ‘gambling’ umbrella).

PS.
Be assured no whinger – screen writer decades – now immune (handle) rejection – sheer stupidity & arrogance of prevailing situation real cause of concern?

Good one Doug, honest. It’s a good read and touche on the vocation argument. YEEEOWWW or D’OH

I’ll read the linked article.

@ Doug.

Hope wrong? Have strange feeling our new friend Brian could be that expat Irishman now advising local producers on features that won’t make money?

Ford: No I am definitely not Brian Rosen.

Doug: Slightly misread your response, I thought you were turning the vocation argument on me (which would have been a fair thing considering the frustrations I expressed).

Keeping the dialogue open for improvement is definitely the way to go. Having said that I’m not sure I want to keep our debate going in this particular environment and would be open to another forum/channel.

@ Brian.

Heat & kitchens.

@ Doug.
Writing writers into the picture.

Just noted your PS?
You wrote ” this forum has been set up for those who wish to instigate debate and discussion”. Obviously can’t speak for Chris Webster – but judging by the tone of your PS – appears you’d like this blog restricted too those who agree with your assessment? Those who don’t you slag off.
Synopis – what I’m about – “change”.(jobs).

PS.
Gold Nugget.
Some of us have long recognised that simple “fault identification” is not necessarily an indication of knowledge…

Doug,
I’m concerned that you didn’t understand my comment. It is nothing more than a summary of our screenplay, presented in a similar style to the other summaries, which feature in the body of the article. My co-writer and I have sought to write a story that Australian movie goers want to see and will urge their friends to see. We tell people that our screenplay is “The Castle” meets “The Hangover” and we mostly receive positive responses (e.g. laughter) and enquiries as to when they can see it. If you like I could email you a copy of the script and you could provide some informed criticism.
Chris.
P.s. The hero of our Aussie stoner comedy is Stephen Ulysses Ash and his father is called Doug.

Thats great Chris…its just there’s a discussion going on here and it doesn’t concern your film, so to just post something like that in the context of an ongoing discussion, is a little confusing. All the best with the production. Personally i think you might be better off shooting a short to promote the feature and post that somewhere else, other than here.

@Doug and @Ford Fairlane – I’m not slagging you off Ford Fairlane, but I have to admit that mostly I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Your abbreviated style of writing makes me feel like I’m reading a dozen tweets strung together.
@Chris Webster – good luck with the screenplay. Australia really needs another film about drugs.

@AdventureGal…don’t put me in the same box as Ford Fairlane…I’ve got know idea what he’s talking about. @ Ford Fairlane..I express my opinion and try and communicate it in a way that others might comprehend it like Brian. If you actually read what you’re writing Fairlane..it doesn’t make any friggin sense and comes across like you’re writing under the influence of Crack…maybe contact Chris Webster and combine synopis’s

example…synopis..what I’m about “change” (jobs)

@Brian …heat and kitchens? WTF does that mean?

Its like you’re beaming your opinions via morse-code from some remote hut in Siberia

Actually read that back to yourself…maybe go and do it in front of a mirror or turn your webcam on and see how somebody else might read this riveting snippet of insight.

Great so we agree, but could you maybe go into some detail about synopis..what I’m about “change” (jobs)?

AdventureGal,
You actually need to read our screenplay to know what it is about. “The Hangover” was watched by a very wide audience, even my wife’s grandmother loved it, despite the lurid subject matter. I know drugs can be tragic because my brother died of a heroin overdose. Our story is uplifting, the kind people like to watch.
“Pretty Woman” features prostitutes, drugs, and an attempted raping; however, it is much loved romantic comedy. You’re welcome to read “Mull Burn” and you might be surprised to find you like it.
Doug,
You should be careful about what you imply. I’ve used my real name and what you have written may constitute libel. I am a respected health professional and I would be very disappointed if any of my patients saw your comment implying that I use drugs. Do you think the writer of “Mad Max” was a toddler killer?
Chris Webster.

@ Adventure Gal.

Appologies for my “abbreviated style”. This is a result of ‘”taking a break'” from screenwriting – sticking my head up above the parapets. Points I’m trying to make
is that under the current direction (administration) AUS filmmakers are only managing 4.5% of our own domestic market – therefore “change” is urgently needed. “Jobs” comment refers to the never ending stream of graduates being turned out of various (including gov funded) institutions – couple latter with former and hopefully you’ll see where I’m coming from? Frustrates when people continually infer we cannot be globally competitive? Right now the unstoppable onslaught of the www offers great oppotunities for innovative commercial fillmakers – current distibution system where a select few finish up with everything is now entering its well deserved end time. Sony – 20thCF – Univ – WB just launched a deal with US Direct TV to show major releases 60 days after their theatrical release – given time this will become simultaneous – every chance major distributers (theatre chains) will be cut out (think silent movie makers vs talkies). Therefore imperative AUS filmmakers and those currently in positions of power & influence prepare for this inevitable change. Trust this has clarified my position somewhat?

PS.
Give you a tip – that “abbreviated” style invaluable in art of storytelling – “don’t capture essense of story first time – you never will”.

@ CW.
Advise not getting sucked into personal slanging matches with negative non creative morons – aka “cyber bullies”.

@Chris Webster…if you look hard enough for what you want to see you might find it…keep looking long enoughand you will, human perception is funny like that. I haven’t implied you’re on drugs..I’ve suggested that the way Ford is writing indicates that he might be under the influence of them such is his scattered approach to writing his opinions (there is some humor in there and seeing as you’re writing humor, look hard you might see it) and seeing as how you’ve gleefully run into this dialogue, not bothered to even read what the thread is about and just launched into some pitch about a screenplay you’ve got tucked on a hard drive somewhere, that maybe the both of you should contact each other and compare how you both have no interest in developing debate but see this forum as a place to just pitch the first thought that springs to mind. Congrats to the both of you…I’m signing off…what a waste of friggin time.

PS: As far as I know..and sorry for not knowing everything.. but I am working on it…George Miller is not a child murderer, but more a man cut in the mould of an intelligent filmmaker who at one time in his career obviously knew when to pitch and when not to..maybe call him and get some advice on that aspect of your filmmaking career. Honestly Chris look at what you’re doing here and look at what you’re writing. Do you honestly think that anybody is gonna go..WOW what a great idea for a film..can’t wait to swing that into production..slingshot that one to me around the sun quick smart…I mean really dude..c’mon..its delusional…might work around the water cooler as a health professional, but the world of filmamking is a little more shrewd and robust than that?

Great..now I get the tag of Cyber Bully..reread what I’ve actually being writing, you might see I offered Chris some advice on the best path forward and wished him all the best with the success of his film. It is in fact the both of you who have derailed this discussion and turned it into a trivial mess. Bully? Seriously what a joke! You might like to see that Brian posted his opinion I replied in kind and then we came to an insightful conclusion for us both…its called debate and discussion..and then we have the pitch fest and the morse code session…and its been a downhill slide from there to the swamp of apathy..applause all round..mission complete.

@ Chris Webster: You’re a respected Health Professional and you’re writing a film about a pot drought and the main hero is on a quest to restore the drug of choice to the city…and you’re worried that some blogger could be implying to your patients that you might be using drugs and could be libel for defamation of character? Your choice of rational logic from a respected “health professional” is disturbing.

Didn’t tag anyone – tagged yourself – shoe fits wear it.

I believe I’m not delusional in stating that “Mad Max” and “The Castle”, two highly successful Australian films, were both written and conceived by Doctors.
Zaijian,
Chris.

This thread seems to be about the idea that a bunch of movies were made on topics that won’t reach a mainstream audience and a bunch of people think they deserve funding for there material that they believe will reach a wider audience.
It also seems to me that some of you are missing what a mainstream culture would like to see, unfortunatly a lot of people take drugs as a major part of there life; as a result it becomes familiar topic matter for a wide audience of people from all walks of life.
Movies including trainspotting, basketball diaries and pineapple express have all been reasonably succesful in reaching a wide audience and focussed mainly on the use of drugs and there effect on society around them wether they be potrayed comedically, dramatically or in any other way you please.

I would have thought that a seasoned health professional was in as good a position as any to discuss the matter of drug usage. Though it may not be so wise to be openly saying he is a health professional that has written a move about drugs no where has he said he has taken drugs and Doug i know you didnt actually say he did but it did sorta imply that he was a ‘crack head’ too (though good luck going for libel on that)

two cents of a fly on the wall

@ Doug.

This blog isn’t about you me wrting styles crack or Siberia – though your personal
etiquette is a work in progress – still hold the opinion we have more in common than that which divides. Your on song about the negatives currently facing our industry – but what are you like on the positives? How can we rectify it?

@Ford..if you care to read widely across this entire site I have thrown ideas back and forth about rectifying problems in the industry, where others have called for the entire sacking of the development group of SA, I have said that this is a negative whereby everybody loses. I have repeatedly called for more development funding for screenwriters etc etc. There is a narrative drought going on in this country, this is a major problem for the industry. Its not a matter of paying screenwriters to sit in rooms to write, although that is a large part of the creative process of writing, its about creating the pathways for quality writing to navigate around the posse of producers with a full slate and for these screenplays to be found. Social media will and should play a large part in this. We function in an industry of the POWER 50, or 100…why should this be so? its ridiculous, we’re a wealthy country, a creative country, to allow a handful to dictate to the many, well you’re simply taking a dump in your own nest. We need ambition, we need innovation (can I say this word anymore?) and we need faith in our creative potential and our own voice. I see no reason why we shouldn’t have a booming local industry making quality high concept and mid range feature films and a myriad of other content. We have a great opportunity and it is happening NOW! I don’t want to see that great opportunity pass a generation by..I grew up in what I consider to be such a negative period for Australian cinema, lots of wasted opportunities. Well technology is changing that…but we need the funding to go with the technology…hand in hand.
I have a problem with public policy, cynical filmmaking masquerading as feel good or overtly sincere realism and the inherent nepotism within the industry, robbing a fair go for all, especially the talented. I’d like to see the industry evolve for the next generation of filmmakers, a generation who have tech skills that are highly sophisticated. What they lack is funding, adequate development funding, combined with key selection criteria that acts as a rusty old gate shutting out innovation. Not all my gripes are with funding bodies as such, they have an impossible task..I think the main problem is we are slow to embrace innovation and new ideas. Like I have pointed out before, the problems we face are getting rid of old perspectives and replacing them with bold innovative development programs that provide the avenue for radical ideas and the subsequent flow on effect for the production of these ideas to be hopefully embraced by a very global and cinema savvy audience.Throw me a problem Ford and I’ll throw you a potential solution..you know the whole debate discussion thing I was going on about before? Before yourself and CW started peppering this whole discussion with comments that made no sense or were just shameless self promotion. I choose to work in a creative industry, part of the love of creativity and collaboration is the debate and the discussion the sharing of coherent perspectives based around a common goal. Like I said before, with human perception if you keep looking for what you want to read, you’ll find it.
With regard to my etiquette…there’s humor there if you look for it..again its a manner of perspective. The choice is yours

Like I said – not about you or me – sure other more gifted bloggers are also both concerned & involved – hopefully they’ll all contribute “positives”. Eg: James Ricketson raises a valid point regarding first contact submisions being judged on merit – not name or title. Nameless single page synopsis? Covering what?

Dear Ford we’re all very well aware of James Ricketson’s valid points.

“Your on song about the negatives currently facing our industry – but what are you like on the positives? How can we rectify it?”

You asked a question..I gave an answer

Doug – not a question directed at you? Directed at others – lets see what they say – can contribute? With the imminent approach of the internet – we don’t do something soon – we’ll all be playing catchup – could – if thats at all possible – finish up worse off than we are now. Plenty of other stakeholders view this blog – majority being smarter than both of us combined.

OMG what have I started here! LOL

Chris, no offence but I honestly thought your synopsis was some sort of parody or joke about the debate … to my knowledge the big dry doesn’t happen as much anymore in these days so hydroponics.

And Ford, I’ve got to agree with Doug that your posts had been hard to follow.

I guess this whole thing has shown the strength and weaknesses of online forums. For instance, I was a bit taken aback when Doug said my comments were a slap in the face for a lot of filmmakers, but it may be true that what I said sounded like that. I was also a bit miffed initially by Doug saying some of my comments were ‘gold’ coming from a person who has worked in government.

One thing I would admit to, but I think is worth considering by all, is that having worked at a government funding body I’m probably overly-sensitive to certain forms of criticism (a sense of tarred with the same brush). That is, when there is a constant underlying, and sometimes quite vocal, dissatisfaction with the way govt handles stuff it often makes the job of a bureaucrat twice as hard because you’ve got to work through all that baggage first. Yes, it’s part of the territory and there are many people who are reasonable but unfortunately there are many who have a sense of entitlement and are rather difficult and create unnecessary problems. I’m in no way implying Doug is of the entitlement camp and like I said, it goes a bit with the territory – and I can assure Doug and other readers that within ranks there’s also vigorous debate on what gets support and what doesn’t.

Unfortunately I think that in something that is quite subjective, ie choosing one project over another, there will always be disagreement but if you start imposing too many rules that would be even worse as rules are still open to interpretation and therefore there’s a potential for quite restrictive ‘soft’ policies to emerge. I’m not in a position to critique Doug’s criticism of certain selections but I have no reason to think they’re not reasonably founded. It’s always going to be difficult and then there’s the problem of something being assessed on paper and in discussion versus what actually gets made – and this could be the source of what I think is Doug’s main criticism of the funding bodies. That is, the same old crews get the work ‘cos they’ve been there and done that no matter what the actual result was; but how do you fix that because there’s more to it than on the surface of that line. In the meantime I’ll join Doug in some hoping. (And Doug, drop a line to Miguel if you want to talk more.)