Bureaucratic turnovers will open opportunities and shut out nepotism

An excellent suggestion James! — this is what needs to happen. Those entrenched at Screen Australia and Screen NSW for more than 3 years need to go – in particular the investment managers.

Great proposal, that honestly opens up a real problem facing film funding bureaucrats. That said, nobody should be put in such an unethical situation..if the film in question is poor, why is it even being shopped around? I mean it should be a meritocracy out there, good work, great ideas, innovation, obvious creative talent should find a home and should be rewarded for the quality of the idea..sadly this is not the scenario facing the talented filmmaker in this country. I think the whole Film Victoria $45k part showed the level of disconnect going on out there, the whole funding system needs an overhaul and we need to think very hard about what kind of industry we want for the future. we should be exporting great ideas not just talent. Solidified cliques are doing real and lasting damage to this industry. I thought it was a hard industry a few years ago now it just seems an impossible one. We keep selling this sick dream to aspiring filmmakers “make great stuff and we’ll help build your career” well in reality it doesn’t work like that…in reality..unless you happen to win a major award at a film festival with a short/feature..you are seriously going to struggle to even exist as a pimple of interest on the radar while you try and scale the cliffs nepotism and proven criteria as you try and find a way to access funding. And if we continue with that small minded and very narrow approach we’ll just keep relying on the same old cliques to build an industry that predominately fails to connect with those that help fund it. We will be what many see us as: An R&D agency for the USA.
I met a well regarded filmmaker a year ago, he’d just been lauded with a few awards, I said “how are you going” he said “Oh well you know still couch surfing”. That’s right he was basically homeless and on struggle street. Now I think that’s a common thing for upcoming filmmakers, a lot of us have been there, but it was very telling, middle aged and still suffering. I think if film bureaucrats knew the real level of struggle going on out there they’d be horrified at themselves for throwing a party at $45K, just like they’re horrified with this proposal that i think is right on the money, three year contract, reviewed and appraised ie: how many winners did you back, what’s your strike rate like? Make it a meritocracy, not a situation where you can fail upwards.
If we can’t provide an equitable industry that is open, accountable and transparent then we really need to simply say..”nice experiment” and move on..I won’t be able to be at the NSW Industry Briefing but can somebody please ask Ruth Harley what were they thinking with A Hearbeat Away?That film stinks of the above situation..like a very strong pong…and they need to be transparent about it..it was a shocking cynical display of nepotism, enough is enough.

I can’t be at the NSW Industry briefing either but I hope someone asks Ms Chambers when we can expect to see ‘Bikini Bandits Downunder’ in a cinema close to me? I’m badly in need of a good laugh.

Solid idea but are you implying there are no honest, unbiased bureaucrats in the system? What if someone had an exceptional 3 year stint and then had to be cut loose. Also, what’s stopping someone using their 3 years to help their friend out? What does the person have to lose in helping their friend make their failure of a film – they will be out of a job in 3 years anyway?

There’s no doubt you’ve identified a major problem but perhaps more accountability needs to be placed on bureaucrats and they be made more replaceable rather than having a 3-year revolving door.

Those at Screen Australia whose job it is to know the difference between a good and a bad screenplay thought that ‘A Heartbeat Away’ was a winner that would appeal to a wide Australian audience. They were wrong. They thought that ‘Sleeping Beauty’ would appeal to an art house audience. They were wrong. They thought that ‘Griff the Invisible’ would find an audience. Wrong again. If Screen Australia is going to insist that it will only accept applications from filmmakers who are ‘proven’ (ie, have a track record), can we filmmakers also insist on having our screenplays assessed by Project Managers who are proven? Project Managers with some kind of a track record – either before they landed at Screen Australia or whilst working for the organization? If the Australian film industry were a Reality TV show, Martha Coleman and her team would all have been voted out of the house by now. Why are they still there? Their three years must almost be up by now! Time to give some others a shot at developing and backing films that audiences just may want to see.

Tom, a good point.

How’s this for a solution? Just as Screen Australia has guidelines that it is prepared to set aside under exceptional circumstances (‘A Heartbeat Away’, ‘Sleeping Beauty’!) the same could apply in the case of a Project Manager who has demonstrated his/her talent at picking ‘winners’ – either in terms of box office success or artistic merit. The corollary of this should be, of course, that a Project Manager who consistently manages to pick ‘losers’ will not be able to ‘fail upwards’.

So who decides whether or not a Project Manager is exceptional? In an ideal world the recommendations of Project Managers for the films they give their stamp of approval to would be on the public record. We would all know that X has her finger on the pulse and that Y has a talent for getting it wrong every time. This is not going to happen. So, it is up to the Head of Film Development to determine which of his/her Project Managers are ‘exceptional’ and which are dead wood. But what if the Head of Film Development (the captain of the ship) gets it wrong most of the time? Well, if he/she has not demonstrate an exceptional talent at developing good screenplays, the CEO of Screen Australia does not renew his/her contract.

So, in short, Tom, let them stay beyond 3 years if they have demonstrated that they are ‘exceptional’. If not, back out into the real world with them to sink or swim as the case may be

Even though it isn’t a meritocracy out there and even though the proven criteria doesn’t apply to all of us, this should in fact be what applies to the funding gatekeepers.
Prove via delegated criteria that your worthy of extending your contract via the merit gleaned from your ability to identify and support innovative and interesting projects. [comment edited]
I mean I have seen over the last four years careers rise and fall from the inside and the outside. I have seen a Director plucked from a festival with a short that broke all the proven criteria, didn’t run for 15 mins it ran for 30 mins, it was able to access funding. How? Anybody else throws up a short script that runs for more than 15 mins and its “cut that down champ or you ain’t getting squat”. That was back in the day when they funded shorts [comment edited]
This Director then went onto direct his first feature, didn’t connect and was about two years too late to ride that genre wave. So what we are seeing is a pattern, rules for the majority that don’t apply to the minority, this has to stop. Rules apply across the board, if not, get rid of all the proven criteria and open up the floodgates. Because that is in fact what proven criteria is to the filmmaker in this country a floodgate. Set up to stop all the special cherubs with a film glowing inside them from clogging the arteries of the under funded and under staffed funding bodies. But at the same time this stifles real innovation and asks the majority to look for certainty in an industry where nobody knows much. So we wheel out McKee and his sermon, that gives a glimmer of hope when all around is dark.. we get out the US script Doctors to tweak this and that and then Producers say “nobody can write in this country” when in fact it should be “We don’t spend anything on screenwriting development [comment edited]. What we need is to embrace social media, utilize this powerful tool to help funding agencies open up the floodgates and create a transparent meritocracy, where obvious talent that pays homage to the craft can rise through the channels. [comment edited] our model is just simply outdated, the audience is too savvy and the industry is still groaning on the same old wheel they have been turning since the 1970’s. Sure they announce new programs like Talent Escalator etc..lip service..look closer..and see what it is. Don’t say you’re transparent and accountable actually be it and use the the natural human resources that will work for free to help guide you towards great work. The USA are doing it…we run like salivating puppies towards most things they do..why stop now?
The model is wrong..fix the model.

“It is the most fantastic privilege to make movies. You really are invading people’s minds at a time when they’re quite vulnerable: they sit in the darkness and they’re open to all kinds of suggestions and thoughts and ideas. To not deliver, to not use that opportunity to, as it were, start a conversation with them and try and, as it were, hopefully change them – remind them of their better selves. That’s the way I used to think of it. How can you remind people of what very decent individuals they are? If you can do that, and they walk out of the cinema feeling good about themselves, better about the world, you’ve done a service. If you don’t, there are much, much easier ways of earning a living.”

-Lord David Puttnam

I think this is an excellent suggestion and I can’t believe it isn’t implemented.

If a Project Manager is truly so great at their job that they only pick winners (and by all means, name one if you can find one of these rare breed), I’m sure they’ll find themselves very employable at another agency at the end of their 3 year contract. But basically I don’t think anyone in any of these positions has proven themselves to be a worthy exception to the rule.

I think certain people have been too removed from certain industry realities for too long and I think some recent box office failures and a recent Film Vic party exposed this.

A dual meritocracy is required!!! We need to copy Hollywood. Not their movies, but their system for seeking out and recognising & rewarding talent. Film-funding bureaucrats should be rewarded with contract extensions for recognising talent before our competitor (Hollywood) does, and film-makers rewarded with government funding for creatively-successful independent productions, no matter how small or obscure they are.
[comment edited]
Film funders should attend every single independent film screening, and see every little film anyone ever makes in Australia, whether released on DVD or YouTube or at their local pub (and not just Tropfest). Then they should approach those most promising filmmakers, and offer their services & assistance, instead of distracting that filmmaker and making them jump through hoops to satisfy their strict application criteria during years in development hell, which has already proven to be a consistent failure.
Think of a typical Hollywood success story. Somewhere on the planet an amateur filmmaker makes a great little film. A keen junior at a major Hollywood film studio somehow stumbles across a copy. He takes it to his superiors who immediately recognise the talent (despite the tiny budget). A deal is quickly put together. The movie is a huge hit. The filmmaker has a successful career, while the studio junior moves up the ranks to executive. Sound familiar?
[comment edited]

Great and perhaps we can also have a prerequisite that filmmakers don’t treat these bodies as ATMs. If there are so many projects that are miles better than the fare you choose to criticise our unique funding bodies for supporting why aren’t they being made without handouts? It sounds like the greater solution would be to not have the funding bodies at all. Your solution would mean that “bureaucrats” spend three years looking at the same projects the last 3 year contract bureaucrat did because many filmmakers thinks it’s not their work which needs addressing but the messenger who rejected it.

Have any of you actually worked in the real film world (i mean something outside of Australia)? If you had, you would realise how lucky we actually have it in Australia.. We have the government highly subsidise film and TV and have regulations ensuring Aussies actually get paid – even when there is often a lot better material coming in from over seas half the time.. Whether the project managers are doing a good job is irrelevent.. the only way you will EVER succeed is if you are good enough to compete internationally.. At some point i imagine Australia will go the way of the UK – and the government funding bodies will go.. we need to grow up and stop thinking thinking that government funding is something that is owed to us.. I know a few of the people working in these organisations and sure they dont always make the right decisions, but hey – anyone you put in those positions would probably have a similar outcome.. And, coming from someone that HAS worked in a US studio environment.. those development executives have far more experience and STILL the majority of the films the studios release aren’t deemed successful.. Its a tough world.. be grateful and stop wasting your time complaining and get working! The producers/writers/directors in LA spend a lot more time honing their skills and working for no money and doing shit jobs (with no health care) and don’t complain.

Ryan- the old lucky argument..great..combined with the “do you work in the industry argument?”..followed up with the old “stop whingeing argument”. So we just accept that everything is fine and just put on a smile. Gimme a break. How many A Heartbeats Away and Tender Hooks and $45K piss ups are we supposed to tolerate before we decide that some change needs to happen. Whats wrong with throwing up ideas for change? Change should be welcomed not feared and oppressed..we all have a passion for cinema and making a sustainable and diverse industry, providing feedback isn’t a bad thing..how is feedback complaining why label it as such, why put all our eggs in one basket with a handful of people? Why should we just accept this as our lot? We fund the industry and have the right to suggest ideas and these ideas should be considered. You can hone your skills and give feedback and should never stop thinking that any opinion that goes against the grain is a bad thing. How can you compete internationally..if project managers (hypothetically) are doing a bad job 50% of the time. How can you develop a career under those conditions? In America, if you keep green lighting crap you get tanked..here you can call such failure a career. Lets maybe stop labelling feedback as whingeing and encourage debate..it is after all a creative industry and if we were to say nothing..imagine how bad it would be then?

I agree with Dolly on this. It is through dialogue, debate, that new ideas emerge, new ways of doing things, new ways of even thinking about what we do and how we find an audience for the products of our imaginations. Alas, there is and can be no real dialogue or debate with Screen Australia or with the one state funding body I am familiar with. They simply do not want to engage in it.

It is rare, in a debate, that any one argument, any one point of view, is ‘right’ in any absolute sense but it is often the case that when two and more ideas collide a totally new idea that none of the debaters had thought of emerges. It is those new ‘Why-didn’t-I-think-of-that’ ideas we need to infuse our funding bodies. It’s not happening.

The free flow of ideas and heated dialogue and debate are essential to the maintenance of a vibrant democracy. Screen Australia’s approach to dialogue/debate is more autocratic than democratic, alas!

Perfect if there is time for debate about the many issues that are raised in these Encore posts. Perfect if there is a willingness on the part of Ruth, Tania and Deb to enter into dialogue with those present. The ABC’s Q&A would be the desired model – a panel made up of people with different points of view so that a little heat can be generated around the questions that keep arising @Encore. Perhaps questions could be submitted in advance so that Sandy could, as per Q&A, invite attendees to stand and ask their question. Given that there will not be a lot of time for Q&A this approach could minimize the possibility of the same questions being asked more than once or of certain pertinent questions not being asked at all because time has run out. A rich mix of challenging questions from the floor could make for an exciting evening for all.
PS I hope that a venue is chosen that will enable as many filmmakers to attend who attended last year at the Film School

Maybe this could be projected on a screen before the NSW Industry Briefing..you know to set the mood and calm the knashing of teeth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU&feature=related
A great film about where good ideas come from..ideas arrive when chance favours the connected mind..so get connected

An inspired suggestion, Dolly. This 4 minutes of You Tube musings on the nature of creativity would indeed get the ‘Briefing’ off to just the right start. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’. There is only ‘us’ if only the funding bodies are prepared to enter into a dialogue and debate with their fellow filmic collaborators – we filmmakers with our diverse ideas and approaches to the craft and art of storytelling.

Like the above You Tube film says, we have never been so interconnected, but our film industry is in fact fractured into this “Us” and “Them” scenario, it simply doesn’t need to be that way. If you have been reading these various blog posts on Encore over the last 12 months, you’ll see a pattern of frustration emerging, combined with an enormous amount of ideas about how to help enhance our industry. There seems to be this constant pushing and pulling going on.. between those that feel outside the industry but are passionate about finding a way to have their ideas validated and help to create an industry that has a more equitable stance based around a diverse and sustainable meritocracy, moving away from the old solidified systems of nepotism and influence and those that seem to feel lucky and satisfied with an industry that rewards them. Us and Them..getting nowhere fast.
If ideas do in fact arrive when chance favours the connected mind, how can when then use the power of social media to create platforms that help enhance the level of chance connecting creative minds together. Funding bodies should combine to find the best local creative minds that can help build a platform whereby narrative ideas and networking can be enhanced. Now I have said in the past, look at what Amazon Studios are doing..and right now I can already hear the groaning of negativity “they rip off writers, you give up your rights etc etc blah blah” Its a massive negative all round to some. Is it any different here? Seriously think about it. A handful of people debate your worth. With zero accountability and transparency as to how they arrived at not developing your idea and why another, often not that great either (if that was the case) went forward. Push away from all that nonsense about big business ripping of writers and simply look at the Amazon model. Scripts are loaded up and read by the community, the best rise to the top and those that struggle and aren’t well executed in terms of craft and concept don’t evolve through the process. Its transparent, its accountable and it rewards those that can jump through the hoops with a respect for craft. You can still have the current system, but you can also implement another alternative, a kind of wild card entry. Now the current system we have is: Send in your script “if you meet the proven criteria” and as Doug pointed out P.C is in fact just a floodgate set up to (potentially) reward those who can be bothered running the marathon, it stops the funding bodies being swamped by those that have half baked ideas and screenplays..potentially. If you can’t tick all the boxes you might be persuaded to not apply. Great ideas are usually simple in construct but not the easiest things to develop, like screenplays. Great ideas for films, don’t always arrive in the lap of professional filmmakers. To suggest so is just pure arrogance and if this was the case Robbie McKee would have very empty seminars. How many of us could never get into Film School? A very large percentage. What does Film School mean to us today? Not much..this isn’t a swipe at what they teach, but now you can get a DSLR Camera, get on Vimeo watch tutorials make your own film and show it to an audience of millions..you can learn the fundamentals of scriptwriting from the web, combined with editing, sound camera etc. With commitment you’ll get better over time. So in fact Film School is an expensive networking device..that’s not to suggest that it isn’t worth the education, but their are other alternatives…lots of them.
Like their should be alternatives in getting your screenplay noticed by funding bodies and producers, away from all the bullshit that makes up the proven criteria. We are seeing repeatedly that proven criteria applies to most but not all. Why is that? How is that? And why as the “investors” in these organizations do we tolerate this obvious nepotistic loophole and why won’t they give us feedback as to why this is okay for some and not for most. Are they that embarrassed? If we can increase the potential for chance to favour the connected mind, we can increase the chances of having raw creativity (ideas) meeting those handful of people in this country that can actually get something developed..maybe even increase that development pool as well. We need to look at our good ideas as assets for export, not something that needs to know a certain somebody. we need to look at our natural human resources as a factory for all kinds of ideas, not something we ship overseas because our factory can’t manufacture a particular model. If we continue going down the current path we’ll simply keep wheeling out the same old tired ideas with the same proven criteria of people as our audiences become more interconnected and cinema savvy..it is in fact us as an industry that is building the walls that are stifling innovation and potential for chance to have that interconnected Eureka moment. We need to give chance the ability to favour the interconnected nature of how ideas grow and are developed.

James, I like your suggestions. I want to add though that the failed films you mentioned were also backed by distributors/international sales agents/investors and most probably were backed before screenOz finally backed them. So the projects have come from being backed in the marketplace first.

Shouldn’t the marketplace be the best indicator of a projects viability and potential success?

Of course from that persective you could also say that the marketplace can’t pick winners either… but it’s a more robust way of means testing projects worth being backed by government film bodies/cottage film industry club.

Best wishes

Scott, the impression I get, though I could be wrong (and stand to be corrected if I am) is that it is often the other way around – the distributors and sales agents looking with more favour on projects that the funding bodies have made clear they wish to put their money into.There was such a buzz coming out of Screen Australia about Julia Leigh’s brilliant script for SLEEPING BEAUTY and its clear desire to see the film made that one can’t help wondering how this influenced sales agents and distributors?

In response to Dolly who, along with Dean and Doug, always has wise and perceptive observations to make in these online debates, my own involvement in therm has put me in contact with various filmmakers – producers, directors, screenwriters. These new contacts will, I feel sure, bear interesting creative fruit – collaborative relationships of benefit to them and me.

To have a website devoted to putting filmmakers in contact with each other (a kind of Filmmaker’s Meeting Place) might be a positive initiative for Screen Australia to get behind if someone were to set up such a site. One new contact wants me to read a screenplay and provide some feedback. Another has sent me his finished no-budget feature to look at for no other reason than that I am interested to see what his fledgling company is up to. I am not a bad cinematographer and may be able to contribute my skills for free to someone who has no budget for his/her film, for instance but would like some help from an experienced filmmaker. I have a screenplay in development that requires a good script editor. And so on.

I am sure that there are many filmmakers who would love to reach out and connect with other filmmakers and form the kinds of creative alliances that make filmmaking exciting and possible even if there is no money in the budget.

Those of my generation (aging Babyboomers) will remember how, back in the late 60s, early 70s, there was little or no money to make films. We simply made them with whatever resources we could beg, borrow or steal. And this was at a time when film was expensive to buy and process. Today, a feature film can, if need be, be made for the cost of the tapes. For virtually nothing. The mindset that is required for 2011, I think, is to work on the presumption that you will not, as a filmmaker, get any funding. If you do, great, but if you don’t or can’t, just go out and make the bloody film anyway. And if you can’t beg, borrow or steal a decent camera, shoot it with your mobile phone.

Exciting low and no budget films will be made that will be much better than what the funding bodies get behind and the penny may eventually drop that these bodies are in drastic need of reform. They are working in accordance with a paradigm that is well passed it’s ‘use-by’ date. They all need to be infused with new ideas of the kind that can only come about if there is a constant flow of filmmakers with those ideas in and out of the organizations.

jamesricketson@gmail.com

If you look at the expansive websites for most funding bodies they already have the networks in place for finding crews and talented professionals. What I am suggesting is a a nationally connected idea platform along the lines of http://www.inktip.com/. This should be built and managed by Screen Australia and private enterprise should be invited to help provide ongoing sponsorship etc. If we simply keep going down this current road, average ideas will continue to access the small pool of funds available. By increasing the chances for ideas to meet the connected mind, we can increase the chances for a constant flow of innovation. Some of the best ideas I have heard for films over the years haven’t come from filmmakers, they’ve come from scientists, musicians, authors etc etc..but they always bookend their ideas with “I can’t write a screenplay or I’m not a filmmaker” so if you could create a social platform for ideas to connect and create a true meritocracy that favored the craft and execution of ideas you could help stimulate innovation. I mean to keep going the way we are going with the same system is madness.. we need to be bold, innovative and interconnected. [comment edited] We aren’t going anywhere if we keep rolling out the same old system.

Dolly, my own experience bears out what you are saying about story ideas.

I found myself, some years ago, teaching screenwriting to some young men and women (mid – late teens) in Cabramatta. The were ‘disadvantaged’ youth from refugee and migrant families all around ther world and the idea of the program was to divert them from possible lives of drugs and crime. They were deemed to be ‘kids at risk.’

Most of these kids had great stories to tell and, needless to say, their stories tended to be based on their own life experiences. With the exception of one young woman, none of them had the skills necessary to write a screenplay (nowhere close) but wow! did they have great stories that they had lived or viewed up close.

To put these young men and women with great stories to tell in contact with screenwriters who have the craft skills necessary to write screenplays but no stories worth telling would be a win-win scenario for all. The same applies, of course, for the scientists etc. that you are referring to.

Cross-fertlilization of ideas is in everyone’s best interests, including Screen Australia’s and other funding bodies, and today, thanks to the internet, such connectivity is relatively cheap to facilitate.

Certainly as a writer, I wouldn’t know where to begin to connect with directors and producers in Australia. And frankly, if directors and producers want good scripts, it might help to let writers have some idea what they’re looking for and actually be prepared to talk to writers about ideas, etc. The expectation that a writer will come up with what you want from some totally isolated position is ludicrous. I know directors and producers say all they want is a good script, but at the end of the day, they have subjects which they are passionate about and want to make films about. If they let writers know this, the writer could aim to come up with something which fits their aims.

Adrian

How about making the first 10 pages of your screenplay available on the internet and posting a link here @ Encore? And perhaps a couple of sentences relating to genre and story. See if any producer or director bites and wants to read more.

Farewell Tony Ginnane, whose parting words are worth of repetition:

In a statement, Ginnane said “There has been ‘a tradition’ at SPAA that the President does not stand for office for more than three years; and in the spirit of that tradition and given my long and public support for the continued rotation of film bureaucrats and others to ensure new blood circulates and policies are refreshed I have decided not to run again for President this year.”

If only our film funding bodies, state and federal, would adopt this tradition…

In the interests of open-ended debate amongst all participants in Thursday’s Industry Briefing, a question for Tania and Ruth – asked in the hope that those present a the Briefing will express their opinions also:

“Investing Australian tax dollars in American films such as Great Gatsby and View From a Bridge will provide much needed work for Australian film crews in the short-term. In the long-term, however, is this a trend that we, as an industry, should been encouraging? Screen Australia and Screen NSW seem to think that that the answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’ but I would like to hear your arguments as to why. I am also interested to know the thoughts on this very important question of the producers, directors, screenwriters and other filmmaking personnel attending this Briefing.”

I think we could be talking about something like this: http://create-pitch.ning.com/

My question is why it is impossible to talk to anyone at Screen Australia about anything? Ive tried lots but its impossible. How is it done?

I’ve only just discovered ‘Bikini Bandits Downunder’. Sounds like a hoot! I hope Ms Chambers can update us on what is happening with this worthy sounding project.

Here’s a question, though I doubt anyone (me included) dares to ask it: “How many filmmakers attendingt the briefing have confidence in the current management of Screen Australia and Screen NSW to get our industry out of the mess it is in?”

If written questions are OK, this is mine.

We’re allowed only on question per filmmaker at the Briefing – which is fair enough given that Screen Australia and Screen NSW have allocated only 45 mins for Q&A. (Why only 45 mins?) If I was allowed a second question this would be it:
“The team at Screen Australia that thought ‘A Heartbeat Away’ would appeal to a general audience clearly got it wrong. Box office receipts confirm this. The Screen Australia team that thought ‘Sleeping Beauty’ would appeal to an art house audience clearly got it wrong. The box office receipts confirm this. How many chances will this team have to get it right before the team is replaced?”

If anyone else thinks this is a question worth asking, please ask it. Questions can be submitted in writing for those who prefer not to do so in person.

Okay, I’ll ask it, James, but a little differently:

“Ruth, could you please explain to us what it was in ‘A Heartbeat Away’ and ‘Sleeping Beauty’ that made you think that ‘Heartbeat’ would appeal to a mainstream audience and ‘Sleeping’ to an arthouse audience? Doesn’t the fact that both films have failed to find their respective audiences suggest that the team that greenlit these films, at both the development and production investment stage, do not have their fingers on the audience pulse? Should the contracts of these film bureaucrats be renewed? If the answer is yes, why? On what grounds?”

I think the real problem is the model we are using, that talent pool we are drawing from is too small. With the average feature film taking at least fives years to finance swapping bureaucrats around every three years might not be prudent, maybe a review of some sort and then an appraisal, maybe this goes on already.
The real problem is the model we are using, it desires innovation but is extremely slow on the uptake. I do see some change developing. But what does worry me is the lack of accountability about films like A Heartbeat Away, Sleeping Beauty I think will find an audience overseas I also actually think allowing first time directors to work under a mentoring program is a great idea, its just that possibility isn’t an option for most and writing a good script should be one part of piecing together that puzzle, but not the whole. But A Heartbeat Away is the kind of cynical feel good bullshit that should just find a very quick home in the nearest bin. Its an utter shocker and to think that in this day and age we could fund such utter tosh and that it could be guided by an ex CEO of the AFC, that is just not on, its a shocking waste of resources. The taxpayer needs to be told how and why this happened, if it was a studio, heads would roll. Funding programs like the All Media fund give me hope that at least they’re beginning to listen to what is coming down the pipeline. Exciting times ahead.

Good point, Dolly, but if implemented it means, in the case of Head of Development at Screen Australia, that we are locked into one vision of what film can be for five years. Do we want another two years of films like HEARTBEAT and SLEEPING?

All questions raised in these online debates can be subsumed under one over-arching question:

“What kinds of films should we be making to develop and sustain a diverse industry and to contribute to an Australian film culture. Are GATSBY and A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE the way to go – American films directed by Australians – or should we be more humble in our aspirations in budgetary terms.”

Here are some examples of modest budget, low budget and smell-of-an-oily-rag budget films that demonstrate that low budget does not necessarily mean low box office.

Consider the following figures for low budget features:

LOCK, STOCK AND TWO
SMOKING BARRELS budget $1 million Box Office $30 million
PARANORMAL ACTIVING budget $15,000 Box Office $193 million
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE budget $400,000 Box Office $46 million
MAD MAX budget $400,000 Box Office $100 million
ONCE budget $160,000 Box Office $20 million
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE budget $15 million Box Office $360 million
THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT budget $4 million Box Office $20 million
SIDEWAYS budget $16 million Box Office $109 million
There is nothing ‘Hollywood’ about most of these films. They could all have been made in
Australia for budgets similar to these. MAD MAX, of course, was.

Compare this list with two recent Australian films:

A HEARTBEAT AWAY budget $7 million Box Office $44,000
SLEEPING BEAUTY budget $10 million. Box Office not yet available but in its third (and probably final) week Sleeping Beauty has taken less than $300,000 in Australia at the time of writing.

We could have made ten $1 million features for the budget of SLEEPING BEAUTY. For the
combined budgets of SLEEPING and HEARTBEAT we could have made four $4 million films (like THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT), eight $2 million films and so on.

When it comes to indie films such as those above it is much less the budget that counts than it is the quality of the screenplay, the boldness and originality of the idea. For $17 million, for instance, we could make 100 feature films budgeted along the lines of ONCE. If only one of these 100 films went on to take $20 million at the box office worldwide (as did ONCE) the investment will have been worthwhile. We could be a world leader in terms of producing quirky, adventurous low budget films – most of which may well fail at the box office. Or we can spend Australian tax-payer dollars on films like GATSBY and VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE which we can virtually guarantee in advance will be box office failures in Australia and contribute nothing to our film culture.

I am not suggesting low and smell-of-an-oily rag-budgeted films as an alternative to ‘mainstream’ but as one stream of a diverse industry. Yes, take a risk on the occasional SLEEPING BEAUTY but take a risk also on lots of low budget films in which filmmakers have the freedom to take risks without a bevy of film bureaucrats breathing down their necks. Unfortunately, all bureaucracies (film is but one example) are self-replicating and suffer from a tendency to accrue to themselves power that mitigates against the very adventurousness, innovation,that is so fundamental to what we do.

James, it would be interesting to know the marketing budget for some ‘independent’ films you’ve mentioned. yes, they could have been made here, but could have they been marketed the same way?
Paramoun spent MILLIONS on Paranormal activity, Napoleon Dynamite had the MTV machinery behind it, Sideways is a Twentieth Century Fox production that was heavily promoted for the Award$$$ season.

All that makes sense to me James. I think the real problem funding bodies face is trying to be everything to everybody. Low budget films mean smaller crews and less money bleeding back into the nuts and bolts of the industry. But if we just feed the bigger budget model and neglect the others we are missing out on a range of other opportunities as they present themselves. I mean its easy to throw mud at the funding agencies, god knows I’ve done it and its made easier when films pop up like A Heartbeat Away and this mud sticks.. especially when you want an answer as to how anybody could be so stupid as to think that AHBA was a good idea..in this cinema savvy age. And this is the age we are living in. I am often amazed as to how the general public have a very informed grip on their understanding of cinema and what they like and why. I think this is a public knowledge base filmmakers ignore and have at their own peril. Our audiences aren’t stupid, in fact they are highly intelligent (even if broadcast TV doesn’t think so) and are very aware of all manner of genre’s etc. Combine this with the fact that they are highly interconnected, so a film can die a very quick death if it doesn’t try and engage the audience respectfully (this respect can have a myriad of forms). Look, film is many different things to many people..but one thing is for certain, we need to weed out the cynicism at the feature film end. There still remains a percentage of greedy cynical bastards who see our industry as a trough of greasy palm opportunity and seem to have little interest in making innovative cinema, Well these people need to either retire or get introspective and open their eyes to the inherent and evolving talent in this industry. The old model is dead..we need new blood with new ideas and passion, because its the passion that gets you over the line. I do honestly believe funding bodies are here to support the industry and I feel that they honestly want to do the best job they can, the problem is that the advice that they rely on for engagement with the industry has been predominately cynical over say the last 15 years. Combined with highly arrogant education institutions run by fossils who though scriptwriting was something Producers did in their spare time while having a coffee with the Director. But I do feel change is slowly happening. And this is the problem in Australia; the slow pace of change..this needs to be sped up and funding bodies need to be encouraged to be innovative and bold..hedging on a safe bet in these content saturated times will more often than not end in disaster, the audience is too smart…and we as an industry need to be smarter and take some confidence in ourselves and our ideas and talent. When we do..look at what we produce? Quality cinema, ground breaking cinema, cinema that is bold and innovative..so why are we so scared of late? There’s a few reasons, too many to list.
We need to get a little crazy..and bold..its what the audience wants and its whats been coming down the pipe of what has been the golden age of American TV.

I would have thought, Miguel, that they only spent millions on marketing when they had something to market – a film, that tested well with audiences and that the distribuitors thought would be a winner.

Here’s my question for Ms Harley and Ms Chambers

“I am a young filmmaker, still in my 20s. I haven’t seen one Australian film in the last few years that has appealed to me or my generation – though ‘Wasted on the Young’ was a brave attempt and almost worked. I get the impression that the funding bodies behind ‘Griff the Invisible’ thought that this story would appeal to young people but really it was dreadful because the script was lousy. And the script for ‘A Heartbeat Away’ was just an embarrassment. No wonder no-one I know between 20 and 35 wants to see any Australian film. They suck. What are you doing to find out what young people want to see rather than keeping on pumping out crap that old bureaucrats think young people want to see?”

Dolly, Young and Restless, I agree with you both. Indeed, Young and Restless, it seems to me that Dolly might be a good mentor for you!?

Miguel, those millions spent on marketing will not come out of the Australian tax-payer’s pockets so we don’t need to factor them into the equation when considering how to turn great ideas into films for micro-budgets.

I’m choosing the figure of $3 million quite arbitrarily for the following exercize. It could be more or less.

Set is aside for micro-budgeted feature films with a maximum of $250,000. Get the state funding bodies to contribute to the fund. The money can be split up in a number of different ways. For example, in any one year, the following could be fully funded:

4 features @ $250,000 $1,000,000
4 features @ $150,000 $ 600,000
4 features @ 100,000 $ 400,000
10 features @ $50,000 $ 500,000
12 features @ $20,000 $ 240,000
total $2,740,000

These are arbitrary ball-park figures but it would be possible to make an Australian version of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, CHANCE within these parameters. That’s 34 feature films for $3 million.

I suspect that such a fund would be inundated with ideas for such micro-budgeted films. Only one of the 34 needs to do well at the box-office to make the exercise worthwhile from a financial point of view. More importantly, such micro-budgeted films would give aspiring filmmakers an opportunity to strut their stuff; to demonstrate what they can do with their imaginations even if they don’t have much money to work with. When Screen Australia next feels inclined to back a director like Julia Leigh they could say, “We love your $10 million feature but given that you’ve never made a film before we’d like to give you $250,000 to both learn your craft and to demonstrate that you can direct. We only need one page. It’s up to you. We want to invest in you but we need to be a little cautious. We’re sure you’ll understand.”

Yes, this $3 million (or whatever the figure might be) would take some money out of the pool available for feature films that employ proper crews, but not much. This would be an investment in ideas, in daring, in innovation.

I would go one step further with such a fund. Do away with committee decision-making. Give the Development Managers a sum of money to play with. By all means, let them consult with their colleagues but if three hate a project and one loves it and has faith in the filmmaker, go with it. Remember, “No one knows anything.”

With budgets of this size we would expect a high failure rate and there would/should be no shame in failing – for either the filmmaker or the Development Manager who took the risk.

@young and the restless, well said…where are the younger writers mentored by the older writers (who do know a few tricks and pitfalls) in this industry and how are they having a voice? TV which is the predominant bread and butter of writers in this country, (that and working in telemarketing) is just clogged with tired voices wheeling out tired ideas under the pump by cynical producers scraping the bottom line. Mentor based programs please..the talent is waiting..step up to the plate funding bodies.

Throughout all of this there is the implication that, as one commentator above observed, there are no honest people in these jobs, which is incredibly simplistic and unintelligent, not to mention deeply insulting. There are always going to be disgruntled applicants for the amount of funding available, and it would behove some of these people to genuinely examine the reasons why this might be the case – could it perhaps be due to the calibre of the project put forward, or the paucity of the notes submitted to cite but two of many reasons? Perish the thought, it’s all about shonky bureaucrats, who are more often than not filmmakers, funding their mates. This tired hackneyed old argument is just not good enough. It is very hard to say no, but there’s never enough money, and let’s face it, every project can’t possibly be worthy of funding. Yeah but mine is, I can hear disgruntled applicants cry. Well the logical extension of that is let’s divvy up the whole pot and give everyone in Australia who calls themselves a producer/writer whatever $750 each to keep their idea alive.

The notion of automatic turnaround might seem extremely democratic but not necessarily realistic, once again implying that there is no talent or expertise required to go in and tick boxes like a drone, it’s just ‘your turn’. And if people are vehemently against the bureaucracy why would they ever want to go there and be part of it? And indeed, who would decide? Presumably not anyone who might be remotely in danger of knocking back disgruntled applicants in which case they’d be funding their mates.

Julie, yes, there may be a few disgruntled commentators but most of the questions raised here, most of the observations, are worth of debate. Regardless of where we sit – either as filmmakers or as film bureaucrats we can’t escape the fact that audiences are not going to see our films. The reasons for this are many and varied and the solutions not easy to find. However, perhaps through healthy debate about both problems and possible solutions find a new approach that works better than the one we have now. My suggestion of a three year turnaround has been challenged by a few people here @ Encore – including yourself – and there has been debate about the pros and cons of limiting contracts. As a result my position has shifted slightly – which is the result that debate is intended to achieve. If a Development Manager demonstrates through his or her decisions a real talent for nurturing projects from conception through to a finished film they are worth their weight in gold. If they have not demonstrated a skill at doing this (acknowledging how hard it is to do) why not give someone else a chance to do the job? But there is another point here also. We all have quite different tastes in the kinds of films we would like to see and, in the case of Managers Managers, the kinds of films that we believe will either work at the box office or make a contribution to Australian film culture. This is as it should be. With a more rapid turnaround of Development Managers than there is now we encourage such diversity. With Development Managers more or less permanently ensconced we discourage this diversity. The more new ideas the better. New people bring in new ideas, have different approaches. Hopefully, this question will be debated at the Industry Briefing on Thursday – with many and varied opinions thrown up for consideration.

@Julie “throughout all this” is a bit of an overstatement Julie, have a read of what I’ve said above..we are instigating debate, throwing ideas around and if you think the calibre of films like A Heartbeat Away are worth funding in this country with the small pool of funds we have available and that we shouldn’t be more prudent, transparent and accountable with our money, then we simply have a major disconnect with what we see as our vision for a sustainable diverse and innovative industry. Of course a lot of films thrown at funding bodies don’t cut the mustard, but so do a large proportion that do get funded. Simply shutting down the argument for change and putting our heads in the collective sand as to what the problems facing our industry are isn’t going to fix the issues at hand. I honestly think people who work for funding bodies want to do the best job they can, but I also think an unhealthy amount of cynicism is still lingering around from a generation of film practioners that still see the future and path ahead as open for debate. We need to change the model and we need to get smarter and more courageous. I think the All Media fund is one example of this and Screen Australia should be applauded for instigating it. Change is slow, but not impossible.

Well, what crap that was! The Industry Briefing. That Sandy George or whoever felt the need to censor my question says it all as far as her impartiality is concerned. If I’d known my question was going to be sanitized and censored I wouldn’t have bothered to ask it. I’ve been told that my question might have hurt the feelings of the filmmakers if they were present. Hello! Whats the point of having a debate if everyone pussy foots around out of fear of hurting someones feelings? The makers of ‘A Heartbeat Away’ and the people who thought it was a terrific screenplay should be accountable for how they have spent the money given to them. I wouldn’t have come if id known questions were going be censored to protect the feelings of filmmakers and bureaucrats. I wont be there next year. Waste of time.

The real problem is accountability. Assessors and their managers need to give sound reasons for their choices of scripts for development. At present they don’t have to, even the government has a policy of ‘non interference’ when it comes to funding decisions. Under such arrangements, assessors can do what they like. It should be their responsibility to critically assess the script and its market potentiality (art house/multiplex) and such reports should then be made public.

Eugene

I was more than a little annoyed last Thursday at the Industry Briefing when my question (for R Harley, above) was radically changed by Sandy George in such a way as to quite radically alter its meaning. My first sentence (“Ruth, could you please explain to us what it was in ‘A Heartbeat Away’ and ‘Sleeping Beauty’ that made you think that ‘Heartbeat’ would appeal to a mainstream audience and ‘Sleeping’ to an arthouse audience?) was cut completely. Martha Coleman was in the auditorium and could have asked it if Ruth felt it was not her area of expertise. I was not alone in the auditorium in wanting some kind of an answer to this question – especially in the case of ‘Heartbeat’.

The second part of my question was “Doesn’t the fact that both films have failed to find their respective audiences suggest that the team that greenlit these films, at both the development and production investment stage, do not have their fingers on the audience pulse? Should the contracts of these film bureaucrats be renewed?” Sandy changed my question into a statement: “They should be fired,” I had supposedly written. How could Sandy put words into my mouth like this? I asked Sandy and she has apologized. But it is too late. The role of a moderator is not to change, edit or censor questions but this is what happened – at least with mine. I had chosen my words carefully and had hoped that they might lead to some debate but who in the audience is going to respond to my supposedly suggesting that a particular bureaucrat should be fired when she is sitting in the auditorium – especially if they are trying to get script development money.

You make some good points, Julia. I also think it’s extremely important that we expose the discrepancy between what these people pro-port to be their objectives, and what in reality they do. On the SA website, for example, this is what they claim:

‘ Screen Australia invests in the development of projects which will enable a consistent flow into the marketplace of high-quality, diverse, audience-engaging screenplays. Applications will be evaluated on creative merit, the team, and the potential for the project to reach an audience appropriate to its cost. The screenwriting craft and development plan are looked at closely…’

But is this really how they operate? It is appropriate to ask questions about Sleeping Beauty and other movies, and it is incumbent upon the assessors and SA to answer these questions. For example, how in real terms did they apply the above quality control methodology to SB and other movies, which were based on appallingly bad scripts and failed miserably at the box office. Just how closely did they look at ‘the screenwriting craft and the development plan?’

Eugene

Eugene, at the Industry Briefing last Thursday Ruth Harley announced that she thought Sleeping Beauty to be a brilliant film. Whilst acknowledging its failure at the box office she said that the film was aimed at a film festival audience and so was a success since it was screened at Cannes. Squeeze me! How many millions of dollars were spent so that a ‘Jane Campion presents’ film can be screened a couple of times at Cannes! It was made for an arthouse audience and the arthouse audience in Australia at least has not been impressed. Less that $300,000 at the box office translates as ‘turkey’. The film was made from a screenplay without a third act and by a novelist with no film experience so it’s not surprising that it didn’t work – regardless of the inclusion of this ‘Jane Campion presents’ film in Competition in Cannes! Sleeping Beauty and A Heartbeat Away are two huge elephants in the room that we do not as an industry talk about. Apart from the praise heaped on Sleeping by Harley, neither film was mentioned at the Briefing. The Emperor has no clothes on but we pretend otherwise.

Film/tv mates looking after mates? Nothing new here. Solution is a good suggestion, but the ’employ/fund a mate over a skilled worker/talent’ will always be hard to shake. Seen it for over 20 years; non-talented hacks getting work over others with talent and skill because of their mate/gf/bf/relative. I don’t see how this funding dilemma is any different.

If project officers don’t like a project, the system can easily be rigged to kill it. They supposedly get impartial readings from industry, but they know in advance what kind of taste the reader has. It’s bullshit and has resulted in a massive bore fest of “culturally relevant” dross. Randomize both the assessors and the readers. 3 green lights from 100% randomly chosen readers – make the film. My bet is that we’ll have more chance of finding an audience compared to the current method. It’s why I now make huge amounts of money outside of “the industry” instead of waiting for fat bureaucrats to “pick me” so I can make a compromised film to satisfy the “board”.

We all know how wonderful “board decisions” are. The Aussie film audience (made up of jealous filmmakers and 80 year olds) speaks volumes about that every time an Aussie film opens and closes a week later. Even the AFI award-winning films.

We’re living in a fantasy world. Our feature film “industry” is an export industry which trades movies for green cards. Wakey wakey children. Go make some money and see how much better real Aussie consumers treat you.

Fantasy Worlds.

Edwin – can’t dream? Shouldn’t be in movies..

Never Underestimate The Power Of Numbers.

A “declining” 4.5% share of an annual $2 bil + local “growth” market reveals a great deal about where this industry’s current practitioners heads are.

But do not be mislead by figures because these numbers merely conceal the primary issue & objectives of a “commercially viable local industry” – jobs – lack of them.