Robert Connolly’s adaptation of Winton’s The Turning gets Screen Australia funding

Keep everyone happy by employing everyone – great use of Tax dollars…

What a mess of a movie this will turn out to be…

Victoria Treole, one of Screen Australia’s “Industry Specialists” along with (edited under our comment moderation policy) Matthew Dabner, also received funding from Screen Australia — she’s listed above as executive producer of GALORE.

The conflict of interest here is appalling — surely anyone involved with Screen Australia such as Connolly or Treole should be excluded from receiving funding from the same body!

(Edited under our content moderation policy)

There is no fair way SA can manage these kinds of conflicts other than mandating that producers who work for SA or are on its Board cannot apply for funding. That would be clear, simple, transparent and fair.

There is no such thing as “conflict of interest”..its called “Standard Operating Procedure” or “Networking”. The sad thing is, this continued use of S.O.P only feeds the careers of a few. So what you end up with is a stagnant pond, a kind of sad looking water feature that sometimes flickers into life at the bottom of our cultural garden. There’s simply too much talent being neglected in this country for those that have cemented careers to be continually given ease of access. There’s a few interesting names in that line up that deserve a break, and some that make you scratch your head and say “Really..do you need that…or should it go to somebody else?” The Turning is a book that would suit adapting for the screen..best of luck to them.

I ll happily let you know that it was infinitesimally easier for Rob to get SA funding before he sat on the board. This project has huge talent attached on top of Rob Connolly. Quite apart from that he is held by everyone who have the pleasure of meeting him as quite possibly the finest example of a Director and gentleman working in Australia today. Doesn’t the fact that he has been critique publicly of funding bodies and the Australian industry make him a reasonably credible and fair candidate?

http://csb.aftrs.edu.au/2011/0.....australia/

Oh dear. Only in Australia. The only time such a conflict of interest is justifiable is if the films those people were involved with were such that they deserved more funding, but that isn’t the case by any stretch of the imagination.

There is certainly an argument to mandate that current boardmembers should not be allowed to apply for funding…however, to extend that further would seem to me, detrimental to film making teams. Victoria Treoele, for example, was a free lance expert consultant who according to recent story I read, is not renewing her contract. Therefore why would it be a conflict for her to act as executive producer? And surely, even if she was still consulting, it seems unworkable to extend conflict of interest to those kinds of roles. No actual practitioners would ever do these jobs which would be even worse.
I’m not sure that Tim Winton has ever been easily adaptable and having ‘cast’ a sexy director list will only make it more difficult. Robert Connelley won’t have a minute to spare to sit on the board of SA, I predict his resignation shortly!!

I agree Rob Connolly is a great filmmaker, passionate and full of innovative views with regard to exploring new funding methods for feature films and I sincerely wish The Turning all the best..I’m looking forward to seeing what they do with a great book. But I think its also fair to say, with regard to accessing government funding, that there is an obvious pattern in this industry, which can seem like a continuous flow of funding to people who have either sat on boards or worked as freelance consultants. There’s nothing wrong with making note of this and asking for a little more scrutiny and public debate. i think the distribution of public funds is improving and we are moving away from the “dark old days” of careers built on a king tide of producing continuous crap to some degree ( fingers crossed). People who work hard in this industry to also build careers and projects towards reality need to feel confident that they can express concern and that this concern can be listened to and considered. it is after all our money and funding bodies should see feedback (even if it is a little cynical) as a means by which to gain a pulse of the industry and to always be looking to improve programs that can support a diverse percentage of filmmakers, not just those that have had a fair smack of the success stick. We’ll only continue to improve this industry via innovation and pragmatic risk taking, this risk taking also means doing the research to back the careers of a few dark horses, not those that have “experience” making suspect and unsuccessful productions. A tired and boring nepotistic approach to innovation which was the SOP for a lot of funding bodies for at least the last twenty years and was extremely frustrating for the vast majority to witness and did real and lasting damage to the local reputation of the industry. Hopefully we can keep improving.

In response to Bruce above, and his comments re Victoria Treole:

Treole was a designated Screen Australia “Industry Specialist” who read scripts, “interviewed” filmmakers and then decided whether she would recommend the project receive further consideration from SA. If she and the other two Industry Specialists didn’t support the project, it had ZERO chance of receive funding from SA.

The fact that she did this on a freelance basis rather than full-time employment in no way mitigates the conflict of interest that then arises when she simultaneously seeks funding for her own projects from the same funding body!

How are the filmmakers whose projects she rejected supposed to feel when they see that their “Industry Specialist” received funding for her own project??

What people are forgetting here is that it is only under CEO Ruth Harley that there is 100% creative scrutiny of feature films by Screen Australia. Brian Rosen, the CEO of its predeccessor, The Film Finance Corporation introduced this creative intervention to 50% of the slate, the other 50% was based upon marketplace attachments. And prior to his appointment for 20 years the system was purely market place based. Although the market place attachments were often weak, as one would expect for a business dominated by Hollywood studios it meant films got made if they could cross this threshold and there was some certainty for producers. No bureaucratic intervention prevented a film being made. There were many failures but some absolute gems. Under the new regime the Australian box office hasn’t improved, extra bureaucrats are employed and nobody is accountable. A number of high profile people have been rejected including Lynda La Plante, Bruce Beresford and Fred Schepisi and have to suffer the humiliation of being interviewed by film specialists who have little or no track record. It was obvious this new system would lead to tears and much resentment but the Federal government has done nothing about, just believing the spin from a very well performing PR department at Screen Australia.

This is always going to be a tricky issue for which there is no easy answer. From a practitioners perspective, it is always better that we have some practicing producers on the Board of Screen Australia, as well as in other advisory capacities, in the mix of people who make these decisions.

I have no idea how much Board members are paid for their work but certainly not a living wage. As the primary funding source in the country (outside of the Tax Offset ), it is difficult if not impossible for filmmakers to raise the necessary funds without Screen Australia funding. It would be unfair – if not ridiculous – for Robert Connolly, a filmmaker of considerable merit, to be excluded during his term on the Board. It is the process as to how that happens that matters, something about which Screen Australia is transparent.

Accusations of bias are inevitable with such limited funding available, whether or not the recipients are associated with Screen Australia. To my knowledge, Screen Australia are very aware of this and their processes are as careful as they can be to avoid accusations of favouritism.

You hear it all the time: “They only got it because…” and here you can fill in… “a favourite of Screen Australia, a woman, indigenous, politically correct, disabled, a migrant, West Australian, a man, a friend of the Labor Party, a friend of the Liberal Party….”

One can never say with certainty why the Board favoured one project over another as those details are not released but for the most part Board members take the advice of the investment officers and other relevant staff who have intricately gone through the viability of a project. Some may have gotten through without that level of due diligence but it is hard to imagine how it would happen. An application for a film project amounts to huge volume of paper that is forensically examined.

Program makers are regularly asked to review projects for State funding bodies as well. It would be impossible for them to exclude themselves from that source of public funding. They do not make financing decisions about their own shows.

We all feel aggrieved by the unfairness of decisions made in this industry from time to time – and with good reason. It is wrong, however, to see a conspiracy in every project that a funding body, distributor or broadcaster rejects.

Having said this, a semi-regular evaluation of process is well worth doing (in every area). Keeps everyone on their toes.