Taking the temperature: Section 2 – the screen agencies

I think the real tragedy of this industry is the amount of talent that simply turns away from it or moves OS in search of a career, most don’t make that move, they become so disenchanted with trying to find a way forward they give up, usually that might shoulder a massive HECs debt to cap off that sense of defeat. And yeah there is a defeatist attitude in the sector, because put simply its impossible to make a living in this industry for the majority..that’s a fact..it might not be a fact people want to hear..but its a fact none the less. A novelist parachuting into a directing role isn’t really reflective of an industry that is standing with its eye’s wide open..

“It’s hard to support that proposition when you have a film, by a woman, in Cannes who has never directed a film before, and I’m talking about Julia Leigh in Sleeping Beauty who is a novelist of some distinction but parachutes into a feature film with the support of Screen Australia through the Government funding process. I see evisceration at a state level for Screen NSW at certain entry-level productions but I don’t see a blanket antagonism to new people through, at least, funding by Screen Australia”

The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant, actually in the eyes of most funding bodies, being predominately staffed by women, this is a major plus ( and no I’m not playing a card here just noting a fact). This novelist of some distinction also has another book/screenplay being produced “The Hunter”, so its not like she’s shot out of nowhere. And now that we’ve all had time to watch Sleeping Beauty, i think we can confidently say..where did this film go? What was it trying to be?
I love the fact that SA is willing to and ultimately does give the nod to somebody with no discernible experience with directing film..but will that nod and the mentor program that was rolled out for Sleeping Beauty be continued..highly unlikely..seeing as Sleeping Beauty bombed with critics and bombed at the box office..but in the eyes of Dr Ruth Harley getting into Canne is success enough, maybe it is.. it is strange seeing as I never really thought we were simply in the festival business, I thought we were in the business of making films that could connect with audiences and hopefully build the careers of filmmakers who have dedicated an enormous amount of time..a kind of cultural exchange

Chris: if you can point to anybody how they can go down that Roger Corman path I’m sure everybody is all ears..seriously how does one find that path and how does one get that path to be sustainable? I think most filmmakers in this country see that funding bodies have an impossible job with limited funds and a real tide of apathy rolled up in some miss directed anxiety is being thrown the way of Funding Bodies, they’re an easy target (fueled by a few recent crappy films and 45k good bye parties). So if the Roger Corman path is a possibility..what does it look like and how do you make it happen?
I think there’s lots of good scripts around and people with the balls..but even balls needs some cash..and that doesn’t seem to be around. I really don’t think you understand how skint most filmmakers are..as in.. on the poverty line!!

Skint Film maker here.
Have secured a small amount of private investment, and I’m getting a personal loan to make my first feature.
Great post Doug.

I will not be wasting my time trying to get funding. This is not a bitter comment, just a realistic one.

I don’t believe that first time/emerging film makers should be getting large grants.
But many small emerging film makers being given smaller grants and production equipment services in kind type subsidies to feed such a Roger Corman style approach would be a real boon for our entire industry I believe.

That said, nor do I believe that if you have in the past received significant funding and have been in the industry for many years, yet you are still not able to produce content capable of attracting investment or turning a profit, that your “experience” deems you as more worthy of being funded. I find such an idea ludicrous. Surely it should be the other way around.

It’s a statistical fact that a very experienced director actually has no more chance of having a box office hit than a first time director. Such is the difficulty of the art form we are in.

I have no agenda with my post. It’s my dream to actually one day be able to subsidise other film makers myself, not to be top of the funding food chain.

I agree with your comments Doug. But at the end of the day, anyone can make a film…it’s getting it into the cinema that’s the tricky part. What I would like to see from the bodies like Film Vic and Screen Australia is assistance in getting distribution.