Australian taxpayers pay for Rich Lister Nicole Kidman’s trip to film festival

This is an excellent use of funds and hopefully signals a return to lavish overseas junkets.

Who cares. Non event.

I only can hope Nicole pays tax on her full income

I recently completed a feature film financed entirely with private capital – when I asked Screen Australia for funding to pay for me to go to it’s first international screening… I was kindly told to bugger off.

I now understand that as a young film maker, I must stand aside and continue to be ignored by the likes of Screen Australia so that poor struggling actors like Nicole can be given a chance to represent their work on an international stage.

I shall know in the future not to be so selfish to think that Screen Australia’s should care or take note of the next generation of film makers.

Well, I hope they pay it back!
Once again a screen body in Australia misses the point of funding those who need it most. Hint: It’s not films starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth. With what they receive as pay for a film being more than most Aussie filmmakers will see in a lifetime, they can pay their own bloody way!

That’s why our film industry’s fucked. Who give’s a rat’s ass whether it Nicole or Sally Blogs. We need to fund our industry more and use our “big” names for exposure. Stop whinging Mumbrella.

Is this really your top news story???
She has single handidly pumped millions of dollers into the Australian economy with her constant promotion of this country.
Who cares if she uses a miniscual amount of taxpayer money to promote it, when Australia is a location within the film???

This is an issue. Established film
Makers continue to be favoured in grants while new film makers arguably with more innovative stories to tell are overlooked. Screen Australia is a joke and this is disgusting.

I’ve always thought the best pathway to a successful cinematic release was to make the film, and then not spend a cent on promoting it.

Another case of socialised costs and privatised profits??

I wouldn’t mind, but as a shareholder I dont even get a free ticket or a bag of popcorn.

$10k – that is the cost of a 15 second TVC. Sounds like a great investment for Screen Australia.

I think all this will come under much scrutiny with Graeme Mason as the new CEO. He has great experience in sales and distribution. There is no way that Screen Australia should be making any contribution for festival travel for a film reputed to have cost over 20 million which has a sales company selling it internationally. The grants may be useful for small films but there comes a time where you have to tell producers to stop sucking on the taxpayers teat. The producer and director should also have been paid for by the sales company. It was all part of Ruth Harley’s misguided quest for good PR for Screen Australia. Let’s hope it now stops. I feel sorry for you Hmmm but you should never take no for an answer and you should kick up a stink which is rational and forceful.

I hope they send her 1st class.

It’s part of the overall budget for the film. Budgets always – or should always – include publicity. If that’s what it costs then so be it.

If she paid for it herself then claimed it on tax it could be a deduction so us, the taxpaying public still wouldn’t win!

yeah Ed,

all these well paid stars do it to promote Australia and upgrade its economic performance. NO no really, they are.
– Thats why so many set up offshore to ensure they are not a further burdent to Australia (nothing to do with tax minimisation)
– Thats why they employ accountants to minimise every cost and obligation (tax included).
– Thats why they allow their personal share (avarice) to grow unabated.
– Thats why they pour funds back into the taxpayer funded schools where they originally learn /hone their craft.

Yeah $10 -25K is not a lot of money unless its your parent that can’t get medicine at affordable prices…ps. hope the Canada trip went well).
It is the principle……….why is it that as people rise (and gain magnificant paid as they rise). Why is it that we think all their cost of business should be subsidised by the tax payer????

It’s called marketing a film you navel gazers.
$10000K is a tiny investment measured against the returns of sending Nicole across to promote the film.
Whinge about the level of funding Screen Australia receives not where they’re spending it.

As a taxpayer I am resigned to the fact that my tax dollars are not always going to go where I want them to go, pretty much. As a Producer, I would have loved to get my hands on that $25k but respect and agree that if someone else in the industry with great creative/talent but limited support will be given the opportunity to be there when their hard work will finally be seen on the big screen, I say definitely give them the money! I don’t doubt that The Railway Man was a lot of very hard work, but to give this support to a fully financed multi-million dollar bracket film that should have this accounted for anyway I am flummoxed as to why they would even APPLY? It’s not their fault SA are giving it to them – if it’s free and you can get it, why not I suppose – but perhaps they should let others have a bit of the pie.. and consider those less privileged but equally talented before they start the form-filling.

Sorry $10000K would obviously be a massive investment. You know what I mean

There are South Australians at Sundance Film Festival right now, with their locally made, mainly self-funded film that they begged, borrowed and (almost) stole to get made, and which was picked to have its International Premiere at Sundance. I bet they’d love some of this funding. Andrew, if you’re worried about how much funding Screen Australia receives, surely you’d be concerned when their limited funds are inefficiently spent? Do think this $25K has developed anyone’s career? If it’s for tourism benefit, let Tourism pay the funds and not a screen development body.

What a piss weak excuse for a story. Sometimes I think Mumbrella is getting worse than an amateur blog.

So? if I can secure a world leading actress to endorse my client for a tiny $10K I’d be laughing.

If Screen Australia hadn’t provided the grants they would have all still attended the festival, so why provide the grants?

$10,000 of Aussie taxpayers money to fly the Queen of Box Office Poison from Tennessee to Toronto – what a joke.

Kidman again under fire for helping a small Australian film and brining jobs to Australians who helped shoot and make the film.

So Kidman is now obliged not only to work for free or next to nothing but also pay out of her own pocket to promote the film?

Her being a millionaire is beside the point. She’s an Australian Tax payer as well!

How is this even a story? Travel is part of a promotional budget and why is this project any less deserving? I see some complaining about how THEY didn’t get the money. If you are an investor who are you more likely to give your 10,000 to? Another poster said it perfectly – how many millions has Nicole by being a great Aussie ambassador/actor pumped back into the economy? Will there be more immature complaining when she promotes the Aussie film Strangerland?

To the complainers: would you care to produce for the rest of us a list of stars that pay for their transportation to promote a film? You wouldn’t be able to because it does not happen. It doesn’t make any difference if that money was used for craft services or Nicole Kidman’s flight to Toronto. It’s a business expense and their film has a right to apply for grants like any other film.

Non story. Slow ”news” day?

Australian society is being poisoned by the politics of envy. This is just another example.

Just to clarify much of the above misinformation. If the sales company representing the Railway Man had paid for Nicole Kidman, producer and director to attend the Toronto Film Festival it would have made a calculated decision as to who really needed to attend. The cost would be recouped in first position as a sales company expense. In contrast the Screen Australia money was a travel grant, a gift never to be recouped. For a film of this budget it could never be justified by a government agency and Screen Australia deserves to be criticised for it. It has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with responsible management by a government agency.

This is such a distractive story. Try digging some dirt on the billions being spent on the repetitive Melbourne Tennis Centre revamp, that stupid Grand Prix and that East-West Link no-one wants.

Pathetic story. She’s given enough to get a tiny something back.

A third of a billion dollars > $333,000,000 > That would make $10,000…Hmn …
1 / 33,300th of her fortune, chump change to Nicole.

Nothing like ‘giving back’ to the industry that made you uber rich, is there.

Naturally, if one is an aficionado of socialised costs / privatised profits then the inevitable ‘politics of envy’ dribble is bound to trickle down.

I think a number of people missed the point of this article.

It rightly pointed out how Screen Australia broke it’s own rules to give more money that required to people who are wealthy, could have afforded to attend, and almost definitely WOULD have attended the festival regardless of SA providing funding.

When I contacted SA for funding, along with being politely told to bugger off, I was also told that they have strict rules and criteria around who can and cannot be funded – so it is especially irritating to see that they bend the rules for some, and not for others.

The amount of money in context is of course very low, but when there is a limited pool of funds and film makers who desperately need help are being tossed aside so that some lousy government employee can go throwing money at fanning their own egos as opposed to helping the industry, really makes you hope that this new CEO will get out the broom and sweep out the bureaucrats at this highly misguided and mismanaged agency.

Great post.. It’s all are the incredible use of funds and perhaps, Graeme mason is a new CEO and he has a great experience in sales and distribution so that’s why the producer and director should have been paid for by the sales company and provided the grants.

Dear, Oh Dear, Your headline sets up your negative story brilliantly, and deserves ‘the killer tabloid headline award’. That said, can we look at the matter rationally. Is/was the picture worth promoting. Yes, Nicole Kidman, and Colin Firth, are terrific in a terrific film. Nicole is a professional actor. That is her job. She turns up, she gets paid, and her expenses get paid. It is the producer’s job to use his/her best endeavours to use all possible avenues to intelligently finance the promotion of his/her film. That Chris Brown did, and has always done. Good on him. He has spent a lifetime in the business of ENTERTAINMENT. Job well done Mister Brown, keep rocking!

David Hannay.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Screen Australia giving money for the cast and crew of an Australian film to be promoted in other film festivals internationally. Just because in this particular case, one of the actresses in question was rich A lister Nicole Kidman, doesn’t mean this exercise is wrong.
If a low budget Australian film happened to make the shortlist at the berlinale for example, I would expect Screen Australia to assist the production crew in getting to the festival in order to receive recognition, promote the film and do all other publicity necessary in order to increase awareness of the Australian film industry.

This “story” is the biggest beat-up since my 4 year old made pancakes. The headline bears no relationship to the facts revealed in the story itself – the funds were not applied for by, or paid to, Ms Kidman. The “journalists” responsible for this tripe were drawing a (completely wrong) conclusion from information published (in error, as their own article spells out) on a Screen Australia website. That’s just sloppy sensationalism. But to bring Ms Kidman’s personal wealth into it is just … well, I’ll be polite and call it wrong-headed, and clearly a dog whistle to the politics of envy, as correctly identified by others. Mumbrella, you have seriously undermined your credibility by running this shoddy shriek-piece. If I want brain-dead “reporting” I’ll pick up a copy of New Idea or turn on Today Tonight. Perhaps those are the outlets your writers aspire to inhabit …

What is needed for an “Australian film industry” is transparency, and a level playing field. Part of this article and intention is about to varying degrees that some “applicants get, compared to another applicant”.

In line with investment in development and production, Screen Australia should have a fixed budgetary amount for all of its programs and all projects receive the same amount.

Just for example, locally produced television documentary $250,000. Locally produced feature film $2 million. International productions and additional 25%. Then producers and production companies would know exactly where they stand in relation to raising finances and budgets for a given project.

It would cut down on submissions, paperwork, interviews, and the variance of one production getting $50,000 and another production getting $350,000? While aiding the notion of a sustainable industry as producers and production companies would be able to tailor their production plan to the required and fixed finances.

Financial assistance that is set and are a given, and not at the vagaries of a individual “investment manager/s” bringing personal preferences; and what is often raised in this multimillion dollar taxpayer funded “industry” nepotism.

If a producer-production manager requires more funds they have a listed benchmark to then go to various international broadcasters and private investors to raise additional funds above the prescribed set amounts for all qualifying productions.

Recently there was articles on the success of the “enterprise program”. It is very easy for a production company to be “profitable”, when receiving hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of production funding on a quasi-regular basis.

Compared to producers and production companies investing vast amount of resources into applications only to have the “fat trimmed” or the overall budget reduced without adhering to the very subjective and it seems to be highly flexible guidelines?

Give the industry fixed amounts. The same for broadcast licensing fees and then producers will be able to make their own financing decisions, by tailoring their programs, budgets and expectations to the fixed SA subsidised amounts. With the option to borrow and or raise additional funds if an when required for a project and develop some entrepreneurial spirit.

We need certainty and the removal of red tape and bureaucratic influences to have any possibility of creating an industry. This will only be achievable if there is transparency and equality for all budgets and projects within a given genre or program category.

Then more experienced producers will have the ability to raise more overseas funds for more ambitious projects and all producers and production companies will work within a known given budget to produce programs rather than producing speculative paperwork.

I guess one can always ‘rationalise away’ tax payers funding the airfare of Australia’s 4th richest woman, seeing this noble act as yet another prize example of our Holy Cow Capitalism ‘winner takes all’ credo. Maybe Gina R could do with more funding, seeing as she is doing so much for the Land of Oz, internationally.

@the Count: great post. And to all the fools who ranted and raved – sucked in. Next time check facts before flexing stubby fingers.

Alex,
Yes, I can see what your article “explicitly states”. My point is that the headline was misleading. But I suppose a headline saying ‘Factual error on Screen Australia website creates unfounded angst” probably isn’t going to generate the clicks you’re after …

It’s a bit of a moot point now but the second para says the $10k grant to Kidman “was the largest of its type given by Screen Australia over the last 12 months” but according to the very next paragraph Jonathan Teplitzky also received a $10k travel grant to go to the same event.

You also refer to the AFR rich list, which doesn’t exist (I think you meant the BRW rich list).

Pretty sloppy stuff guys.

Perhaps the producers should have searched for funding from Asian investors in the first place, shoot the film in an Asian city instead of Queensland, and get the Asian investors to fund all the travel expenses to promote the film. That way, the producers don’t have to request anything from Screen Australia. That’s right, just send the film jobs offshore. 🙂

It’s a Club and your not invited….well spotted Mumbrella