Who’s afraid of Australian films?

I think this is just about right. Everyone is afraid of new Australian film. I remember coming out of a small screening of ‘Beautiful Kate’ and hearing whispers of: ‘What a strange film…’ ‘How sordid…’, which is correct, in terms of subject matter: but why do these have to be negative attributes? I think it just shows that Australian cinema is not trying to shy away from complex topics, and while it may not always be perfect, at least it interesting and doesn’t fit into the ‘hollywood’ genre. But perhaps that’s what make’s it scary in the first place, it’s inability to be ‘defined’; it’s ‘otherness.’

User ID not verified.

I believe Australian critics ARE way too hard on Aussie films. Unless a film is highly successful at the Box Office, it seems to end up with a highly critical review, despite the fact that it was probably made for 10% of the budget of its American or European competitor.

Read any review of any Aussie film that has been rated as “pretty good” and you will find there is always a put-down of some sort, totally devaluing the experience of watching the film. Unfortunately this is pretty much bred into our Aussie culture – the tall poppy syndrome alive in well with our critics (some of them frustrated wannabe directors or writers).

Australian films should be celebrated and the makers congratulated and supported, like they are in other countries. Here’s what we should be saying instead of bagging the films – Well done for pulling it together and making a film, a huge accomplishment!.

Lastly, what few people (critics too) realize is that the European or US films that do make it to our shores have been carefully selected from a vast range of produced films. In the US there are some 4000 plus films made each year, with only maybe 500 of them actually securing a release (dvd/theatrical). Then of those 500 only maybe 50 to 100 actually end up here. So we/our critics get to see the best of the best of other countries films and these are compared to our small range of films…

We actually make some pretty damn good films when you think about it that way!

User ID not verified.

Note: I contribute this after having posted my comment on the ‘Arctic Blast’ review, which was also, partly, on this subject.

There is nothing wrong with Australian critics being harsh (in my opinion they are not harsh enough) when it comes to Australian films. I like Australian films when they’re done well, and I think, on average, we punch well above our weight (especially considering our much smaller budgets bla,bla,bla, etc,etc,etc). But this does not mean that reviewers should gloss over flaws or skirt around the blindingly bad (see aforementioned ‘Arctic Blast’ comment).

Pointing to tall poppy syndrome and shouting ‘It’s in our culture!’ is a cop-out. If the Industry is sick of bad reviews then the film-makes should either rise to the occasion or ignore reviews all together (they’ve been ignoring reviews in theatre for centuries!). Moaning about their ‘precious eggs’ on a budget will not get them anywhere. I say fight back with the only weapon you have: Make…BETTER… films. I think you’ll find people will start watching them – and the reviews will improve. Alternatively, if you can’t hack it, get out of the industry.

On the point Anonymous makes – I think I could review Animal Kingdom and (as the discussion question asks) use the word ‘depressing’ yet make it a positive review. I agree that such terms can be positive attributes, and can be said of many Australian films. Saying that, filmmakers should not be so ignorant as to make an ‘art for its own sake’ film and expect reviews to say otherwise….

User ID not verified.

I am glad there are some constructive discussions on this issue. I can not comment much as I have not seen the movies that are being referred to here. Fiji is also far from getting to where Australia is right now in terms of filmmaking. I am sure Aussie filmmakers will soon find a style that would be uniquely yours and one that will rake in big audience and money. The problem is when someone gets better, he/she is get lured to work in Hollywood. As neignbours we have a lot to learn from you.

Have a nice day.

User ID not verified.

I do think reviewers are too harsh on Australian films. The budgets we have in Australia are so small when compared with nearly all of the films shown in our cinemas. I believe that most reviewers don’t fully understand the landscape in which we make films in this country and tend to cut down films before they have a chance with the Australian audience. Nobody would want reviewers to lie about a film they didn’t like, but I think they have a responsibility to asses the work differently as Australian filmmakers are not on a level playing field with most OS production. I think the comment from James above ‘Just make better films’ is simplistic and shows no real understanding of what it takes to make a film in this country.

User ID not verified.

Trist – My mistake, we don’t need to make better films, we just need to stop making (funding) bad films. On the subject of what it takes to make films in Australia – I do understand how hard it is to make a film here – I don’t deny it for a moment. My point is that just because it’s hard to do doesn’t mean we should get a free ride in the press. Painting a beautiful landscape is hard to do, but if the composition is poor and the colours are garish why should we not question the quality of the work? …and would we expect the Australian public (or an international audience) to hang that painting on their wall?

User ID not verified.

When you give the same small group of about 50 people money over and over again to make the same kind of films then expect the same result.

The problem with Australian films isn’t the subject matter – dark, light – it’s such a tedious argument. The problem is storytelling and marketing. Whether it be an arthouse project or intended commercial project, most of the time the concepts are small/niche or unoriginal, and the actualisation in the screenwriting itself usually fails to meet the core tenets of cinematic storytelling.

Then when it comes to marketing – well it’s even harder to market a movie with a small idea – especially when they have even smaller marketing budgets.

What we really need is a vibrant screenwriting industry – seperate to the uber directors and producers

User ID not verified.

If Animal Kingdom is the best we can produce, then no wonder our audiences run away from Oz films. if it didn’t have the ‘names’ in its cast it would’ve been another slow, long average Aussie film with some good acting (lead actor) and nice moments.

Truth is guys, to avoid bad reviews or poor reception, work on your script, and make better quality films and stop whinging. I agree with the above comments, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

In saying that, there have been some stand-outs over the years. Chopper, Lantana, Wolf Creek, Cedar Boys and Balibo.

User ID not verified.

Edward is right — (‘what we need is a vibrant scriptwriting industry – separate to the uber producers and directors’).

Charlie is not right if I assume he is addressing film makers with (‘stop whinging and work on your script, guys).

There is a great big difference between being a story teller and a film maker — between being a story teller who can write and being a film maker who can create a good STORY (so often through character) and tell that story through his/her film.

It is since the rise and rise of the director/writer — and his/her seemingly unshakeable position now in our film culture — that we have had so many dreary STORIES being told on film. There are notable exceptions to this of course. But I read that it took David Michod (first a journalist/writer) over 8 years to write the script of ‘Animal Kingdom’ and it took Shirley Barrett over 8 years between her original scripts before ‘South Solitary’.

There are writers out there with great original stories to tell. But everyone’s job now, with the mortgage in mind, is to work in TV with story lines.

The trick has always been — first catch your producer/director. And going back many years, it has always been seemingly impossible to get any sort of development funding for work-in-progress unless there is a producer and director already attached.

I have always considered the screenwriter’s job as being to make the best possible bolt of material. Then for the producer and director to embark on the project of making the best possible dress.

This triumvirate of producer/director/writer should then be equally respectful of each other’s talents and particular contribution to the finished product.

And surely, right up there at the top, would be having a good STORY to tell. To be obtained from the primary source and that is the Storyteller. ‘Lantana’ came from an amalgam of Andrew Bovell’s plays. ‘Creation’ came from a book. Let’s hear it for the original Screenplay and the means for uncovering these and nurturing these.

User ID not verified.

I’m a screenwriter with lots of original stories, but in seven years of scriptwriting, only a handful of Australian producers have responded to my queries; and agents won’t even look at my work.

In that time, I’ve had more than 200 offshore script requests, received several offers and developed projects with US and UK producers (none produced as yet).

I don’t consider my experiences to be unique and I’m sure there are many unproduced writers in the country who have all but given up on getting work here. I know several who have representation in the US and have now stopped querying in Australia.

I am constantly amazed how often I can email a major producer in Hollywood and receive a personal request for a screenplay, yet a rare ‘our slate is full’ email from an Australian producer is almost cause to crack open the champers. (I always somehow manage to refrain from asking, “full of what?”)

The industry here appears, to an outsider like me, to be terribly insular and disinterested in fresh ideas. It’s like an exclusive club for insiders, when it could and should be actively looking for new voices and ideas.

It pains me that local producers are unwilling to look outside their own narrow circles, which may be a reason many local movies have a ‘sameness’ about them. You would think a creative industry would welcome and embrace creative people.

Despite the closed doors, I really do want to write in Australia for Australian productions and contribute to the local industry, so I’m now producing my own shorts with a director partner and looking to get my own feature off the ground in the not too distant future.

However, if successful, I’m determined that my door will always be open to new writers and ideas.

User ID not verified.

It’s eerie how similar my experiences are to Patricia’s and Steve’s. They say there are more producers open doors here than overseas – but it’s a lie – the front door leads straight to the exit. If every producer in Australia has a full slate, why are the concepts for their films so poorly executed? When your story is vague, your audience reaction will be vague.

New screenwriters need better pathways for their projects to gain exposure. It shouldn’t be ‘who you know’. It should be ‘what is your story?’.

I challenge the government agencies in 2014 – enough time for writers to prepare – to only fund films that have solo screenwriters credited and with 50% being new screenwriters. This would force producers to get out there and track down new talent with original ideas, rather than continue with their white wine circuit.

User ID not verified.

Steve and Edward — Welcome to the Club which has, I know, many, many more members than us.

My beef for many years, since being a journalist/writer in UK, Spain and US before being one of four writers-in-residence at AFTRS, was that there was no real podium, for want of a better word, or real interplay, between screenwriters and producers here. And that was in the easier days!

For a while, the AWG tried to organise informal drinks between writers, producers, directors and agents which, from my experience at a few, seemed only to engender a dispirited gaggle of writers which I collectivised (before Bob Ellis did) into a Whinge of Writers.

Maybe I didn’t always select the right ones, but even queries to producers who came out of the AFTRS in viable positions in the industry (a bit hens’-teethish, even in better times) were met by the response that they were not looking for anything new. Perhaps implicit in that really did mean ‘not looking for anything new’ and not, as they would have hoped it to mean, any new projects to take on.

Then there is the dyslexic producer I know of who had brilliant young things, usually from overseas, picking through the projects submitted to him with a final, Colisseum-like thumbs up or thumbs down (usually thumbs down). These final pronouncements coming from an overseas perspective whose latest crush could have been the latest genre that’s ‘hot’ o stroke s.

After reading a recent ‘Encore’ article about the AusFilm symposium which took place in London in late May, in an effort to engage the attention of UK film investment (even more crucial for them, now, in the face of the axing of the UK Film Council) I tried to find out more about the Australian producers who were invited to attend. As I have a project which fits all the criteria, over many drafts and over 8 years, I did contact AusFilm. I was treated courteously but told that — yes, most of the invited producers had books they had options on (a long way between a book and years of work on an adapted screenplay) — but no, they couldn’t really give me a producer to follow up who might be interested in a finished screenplay set three-quarters London, one-quarter Sydney, the synopsis of which I had already sent by email.

Want to know what came next?

My best bet would be to go to ‘Encore’. “They have a list of producers there. Try to find one whose work you like, whose work most fits the subject of your screenplay : and get in touch.”

I refrain. No more comment here. If this were a page and I was writing in ink, the paper would be pitted with black-blue blobs.

In a recent email from AWG, it said that Screen Australia was (going to be) willing to accept scripts from writers without attachments (as in, either producer or director). I would like to hear if this is true. If so, how would it be implemented.
Following on from what Edward said, there should be a script ‘clearing house’ with all the funding bodies, with a data base of producers (and, indeed directors, but any director who has liked a script of mine has had just as difficult a job as I have in finding a producer) who may want to see such a script.

But always … And I paraphrase Mrs. Beeton in her 19th century recipe for Jugged Hare …. ‘first catch your producer.’

Let’s hope that some film people in this country might just learn a lesson from our recent spectacular politics. (And don’t forget that smug Labor thought they had done their deal with the Artsy-Fartys : it was only the Coalition who offered ANY money to anything creative or scientific and that was to the Film industry). Perhaps there might be someone one there — just SOME ONE — who might like to jig up the veneer to look at a new way and a better way to get the creative veins in the film culture pumping blood again.

User ID not verified.

My sincere thanks to Patricia, Steve and Edward for sharing the realities of screenwriting in Oz today. I’m a complete newbie, only made 2 shorts so far & written a few short scripts, and I’m researching where to set my focus.

Like most Ozzies, I’d love to write & maybe even make features down under. Create a bigger local industry reknown overseas for its quality output. Would I be wasting my time? Maybe I’m better off writing for Hollywood? I hope not!

If we can’t hold our own in our backyard against overseas competition, we’re in trouble. Surely we know what would appeal to Ozzies? I don’t care if our budgets are smaller, it’s the STORY that matters. Yeah, I know, very original 🙂

Has anyone ever seen ‘the Man from Earth’? It’s one of the most gripping, thought provoking, fascinating films I’ve ever seen, and was made in the US for $200k. Don’t tell me we can’t do the same … or better.

User ID not verified.

The government should fund movies in the following genres: action, comedy, romance, horror and sci-fi. Dramas only appeal to two groups: film students/lecturers and the 50 plus. What’s the point making dramas?

User ID not verified.

Interesting reading everybody’s thoughts here about Screenwriting in OZ. Its a sad shame, can’t get a break anywhere, can’t find a producer can get a look in the door. I’ve been working in this industry for ten years, I’ve finally come to the decision that like Mister Goldman said “Nobody knows anything” especially funding bodies and Australian Producers, this is a cottage industry with a similar mindset.
I think the way forward is for writers to find eager Directors, DOP’s (they are out there) and talented Actors enthusiastic to work with good scripts, start small make a short film that can actually promote a bigger idea, work as a potential trailer for a feature film. Put money and time into it, the technology is there and accessible..put the finished product into festivals, see how you go, launch it on the web, push it around. Just make sure you have a good hook, something that’s gonna bite, this is where you have to be smart and highly critical. Become your own Producer, don’t wait until you get the nod from some halfwit, show them the film, don’t leave anything untouched except the need for more interest! Shoot some key scenes, see how audiences respond online, if its a hit, use that audience data to promote the concept, draw attention to yourself, don’t go fishing for a break with query letters.
Funding bodies, and I know this because I have dealt with them, know utterly nothing, they are the keepers of the purse strings. i have sat through meetings at funding bodies and have walked out bewildered by the lack of passion for real and engaging screen stories or even how to realize them. Stunned by the shocking lack of empathy or understanding for really critical writing. Screenwriting as an art, has been hijacked by hacks, apparently anybody can write a screenplay and should..we all know this not to be the case. I have seen how writers are treated through the production process, and I can tell you that it is shocking to see that the arrogant attitude that writers aren’t somehow also film makers is an ignorant and childish approached still fostered at our film schools and at our funding bodies. There is now even less money for writers than there has ever been. the criteria for applying simply looks after all those that have been adding to the heap of mediocrity for some time.
I feel there is no future for serious and talented writing for film and TV in this culture anymore. Look overseas and invest in yourself, if you build it and the production is of quality…the audience will respond. So go sharpen your sense of the “High Concept” and start networking with Editors, DOP’s, Directors and Serious Actors, all looking for a break, just make sure you do your job as a writer and make it a great script!

User ID not verified.

I hope you are right about the way forward for writers, Martin, because that’s exactly what I’m doing!

User ID not verified.

I think there are many ways forward, but for me this seems like the best strategy. I know having worked on film festivals and basically having been orbiting the industry for the last ten years I’ve slowly noticed a decline in Producer intelligence ( they really don’t have a grasp on High Concept ideas, I pitched a high concept thriller about Dream Theft (inception anybody?) four years ago..the reply “You can’t steal somebodies dreams, thats absurd, audiences won’t get that”! ). Recently I was shopping an unpublished manuscript around to various Producers and one studio, the reply was always ” I don’t see it” Which really made me scratch my head, this story was screaming out to be made into a film, a very well written thriller…eventually I gave up shopping the novella around. This novella was picked up by a major publisher, then a bidding war began in American for the publishing and film rights that then flipped across to the UK and back again. Eventually this “I don’t see it” novella was picked up by a major studio in the US and will now be made in …you guessed it America..land of the free-thinking…..I myself have buried the hatchet on this country, everything I write is for the international market, I’m working on a Sci-Fi Trilogy originally set in Australia now being adapted to the USA…applying for funding once a year, seeing program criteria change and flip..ultimately getting nowhere fast..what a crap way to live your life. Australia…a nice place to sit on the beach, good food…a transit lounge basically….comfortable and relaxed…

User ID not verified.

Three main problems with Australian film industry:
1) Australia still makes far too many low-concept kitchen-sink dramas involving dysfunctional relationships set in suburbia. Unfortunately, the average Australian’s entire life is a low-concept kitchen-sink drama involving dysfunctional relationships in suburbia.
2) Australian film-funding bodies still approve far too many so-called important issue dramas about minority groups. Unfortunately, the majority of Australians are white, of European descent.
3) Australian films are primarily government-funded. Politically-correct arts adminstrators with jobs-for-life are more interested in receiving awards from French politically-correct arts adminstrators than in returning a profit to the govt.

Audiences here simply aren’t paying to see our films. Spending more money for better scripts and higher production values isn’t going to change anything if we still make bigger-budget low-concept kitchen-sink dramas about dysfunctional relationships in suburbia and higher-definition films about struggling minorities.

Hollywood is a success simply because it provides glamourous entertainment. People will pay for an exciting/sexy/funny/thrilling/romantic escapist experience. This applies to movies, theatre, concerts, festivals and even carnival rides.

How often does Hollywood make gritty depressing dysfunctional dramas? Not very often, because they know most people won’t pay to see them and the high cost to produce good ones (with the world’s best talent) will not be recouped.

And when is the last time you paid to see a US film about the plight of alcoholic Native American Indians on the reservations, or of poverty-stricken African Americans struggling in Detroit slums? These are very important issues but do their stories need to be told? Maybe. Will people pay to see them? Probably not.

The main problem with the Australian film industry is that govt funding is being predominantly given to depressing dramas and minority films. This is because the main personal motivation for these overpaid public servants is not to make money. It is to receive recognition from their peers. This is best done by getting some French overpaid public servant to give the film an award. Cannes or Montreal ones are the best for self-promotional masturbation purposes.

Unfortunately, any time that this process is deviated from, it is usually a disaster. If the overpaid public servant funds an ocker comedy, or genre film, the first couple inevitably fail due to lack of experience of the filmmakers. Then there is the danger of heads rolling in the govt dept (no money AND no awards). So in order to protect their jobs, the overpaid public servants return to what they did before. At least if they give the money to some already-established filmmaker to make another depressing drama or minority film, then there is the chance of some French award, and the relevant govt-dept cudos. Profit is irrelevant. Protecting their own jobs is paramount.

So how to fix the Australian film industry? Introduce a system wherein the public servants making funding decisions are punished (contract non-renewals) for unprofitable decisions but are rewarded (contract extensions or even cash bonuses) for profitable films. As they are an integral, some may say primary, factor in the Australian film industry, there needs to be some accountability and incentivization when they are handing out taxpayers’ money. Without it, then all discussions on the problems are pointless and the whole nepotistic self-congratulating system will continue while our film industry dies.

Then the profits from these films can be used to fund dramatic dysfunctional kitchen-sink dramas for limited arthouse audiences. And, if someone wants to make a minority-issue film, give them ten grand to buy a HDV camera and an computer editor and tell them to go for it. Let them tell as many so-called important issues films as they want to. But do it on a budget that matches it’s potential audience (ie tiny).

I’m sure there will be those who disagree but you only need to look at the world’s most successful film industry, Hollywood, to see how to do it. Or the world’s second most successful film industry, Bollywood in India. Or even the big one in Nigeria. They aren’t making depressing dramas, or minority-issue movies as their primary focus.

The NZ Film Commission funded Peter Jackson’s early zombie movies. They made money and by gaining this experience, a decade later he got hundreds of millions of dollars to make Lord of the Rings in a city smaller than Adelaide. This is not going to happen in Australia, while the broken system corruptly rewards profitless (but French award-winning) filmmakers for life.

User ID not verified.

100% right Peter, there is not one thing you have said here that isn’t on the money. I went to an American drama yesterday “Please Give” not a bad film, small little dramatic comedy, could easily have been Australian but the writing was better, during the previews I saw a preview for an Australian film “Summer Coda”…I mean come on!!!!…there wasn’t one thing in that preview that even made me want to watch it on TV let alone in the cinema. NOTE TO INDUSTRY: Unless you have something highly original to say dramatically in terms of a coming of age, secrets in the closet, serious family drama about people in the suburbs or rural Australia( I really do love how people from Brighton and Paddington fictionalize rural Australia, its SOOOOOO spot on..NOT!!!) don’t try and release it in the cinema…make it for TV, if they don’t want it jam it in the theatre, but stop clogging the funding arteries with this tosh…if you are going to do it, make it at least as interesting and depressing as Mike Leighs NAKED…if not, don’t even waste yours, or taxpayers money, stay away from the trough, keep your snout out of it….but wait there’s more..we have SURVIVING GEORGIA in the pipe…that should be a real treat!!! But happily I don’t think that got public funding.
Peter why aren’t you running Screen Australia or Film Vic? Everything you’ve said here (I’ve just reread it, is word perfect)
Could somebody at Screen Australia please tell me how they managed on good authority to get past page five of I LOVE YOU TOO and give it millions of our money??? It was insulting to the intelligence and sense of comedy of most basic upright primates not to mention human beings…I would like an answer to this, but everybody seems to be in a comment proof bunker…the person who rubber stamped this moronic tosh should explain how they arrived at that decision, I read it and couldn’t get past page five and The Age gave it a one star review..ACCOUNTABILTY PLEASE…it works for corporations, lose some of Rupert Murdoch’s cash and you’re going to lose your job, so buckle up and get serious…LOSE the Australian taxpayers and its seen as part of your wider job description. I want to see an end to Directors having blossoming careers while they make one shocker after another, how does that work? I think its called failing upwards? I just noticed a few people appointed to the board of Film Vic for Production Investment…I looked at the names of two of those people selected and can’t remember one good film they have made in the last ten years, one was shockingly awful..another a horror film never got released, trust me I know it was crap..and now these people are giving advice to Film Vic on what would be worthwhile in terms of handing out funding..the mind simply boggles at the selection process here. It might be easier and cheaper to throw a dart out the window, the first person it hits gets the job!!

User ID not verified.

Hi all,
I can sense the collective frustration in your posts. As a producer and ex govt agency rep, I feel frustrated at some common misconceptions about the Australian industry so here’s my take on a few of them.

The contention that Australia doesn’t make or fund films that people want to see needs to be put in the context that govt agencies can only fund from the projects submitted to them, however, there are very few genre films submitted either at script or production stage. Tait Brady has done a statistical study of the 180 films submitted in the final four years of the FFC and only a small percentage were the more commercial style films such as romantic comedies or action films. I read over 1000 scripts in four years at an agency and less than 10% would have been other than drama- and I reckon 80% would have been drama that most people would consider “depressing”. There certainly hasn’t been the diversity of storytelling or high concept films in the past ten years that you’d hope for- although I think that is changing now.

Government money, either through Screen Australia or tax breaks, helped fund Wolf Creek, Chopper, Bran Nue Day, Tomorrow when the war began, Happy Feet, Babe, Wog Boy, The Proposition, Daybreakers etc. That’s a sample of a broad range of films in the commercial or risky range.

Films and TV drama require distributors or sales people to be attached to secure govt funding- the reasoning being that tax payers have to be given the chance to see the product their tax dollars are being used for. This condition means that generally the pool of eligible projects is determined by the distributors and sales agents. They too have not always had many non-drama films to choose from.

The generalisation that agencies are run by career bureaucrats with conservative taste has been around for a long time and, while there are a few people who might have overstayed their welcome, the majority come from the industry, stay a few years and then return to the industry. Have a look at the names in the investment or development committees at the agencies- most have substantial credits- noting that agency boards are usually selected for corporate governance. The pressure is on from government to get audiences for Australian films to justify their investment. International awards are valued in order to secure interest back home as films do better in Australia when an overseas market has validated them. Agencies do celebrate successes as it’s a pleasure to see people get recognised, it gives government confidence that their investment is working and it promotes the films.

As for Australian producers not reading scripts, it’s primarily caused by Australian producers not having the resources to fund a development department or being one person companies. It’s worth noting that producers can face a similar battle to get their projects read by investors and sales agents. The average feature film in Australia takes around four years to develop and two years to finance so solo producers usually cannot handle more than say six films at a time. Given the limited number of producers a small territory like Australia can sustain, then that’s not a lot of slots for the many people writing feature films. It really is the case that many producers do have a full dance card and it’s hard to get them to read your project.

There are ways to get through to Australian producers but they require long term networking similar to what producers do to meet distributors ie getting out into the industry and attending functions, short courses and debriefs about markets. You need to hang out where the producers are. It’s a very different situation to pitch to someone you’ve met rather than someone you’re sending a cold email to.

As to producers selecting the “wrong” projects, they too are trying to make successful films but that’s a hard thing to achieve. Even successful overseas companies bury a lot of duds but, in our small territory, we see the ones that don’t wrok as well as the ones that do.

And critics, well it’s their job to have opinions and some like to bag Australian films while others celebrate them. As a producer, I’d obviously like them to err on the generous side but they have to be true to their opinions.

Looking at the Australian films made in the last year, there’s a maturity, quality and diversity which I believe shows that the industry is diversifying and writers and therefore producers and govt agencies are writing and making a range of films for everyone. Check out the AFI website for the current crop and go see some of them- it’s a great year.

User ID not verified.

Ros,

I found your article rather interesting. One of my first ever approaches to Film Victoria I had you as my contact there. My film got short listed for funding only to find out a week later that you left Film Victoria and got the funding I was applying for.?

So my question is to you… Do you think that having people who work at Screen Australia getting all the first dibs on funding is justified? It does seem to be a well known trend that most people leave Screen Australia, Film Victoria etc and then end up getting funding from their old work colleagues within a few months of leaving.

I think what would make the film industry that I work in a lot happier, a lot more creative and most of all completely void of the boys club would be to have people working at the funding bodies base decisions on commercial factors, creative detail, approach and obviously a roster of known writers, directors who can help rate the scripts.

I just find that when OLD funding body producers have their say it’s usually with a little frustration that I just feel like saying “Where is the ethical standards, where is the honesty and most of all where is the transparency.

I say to young filmmakers coming up the ranks that they shouldn’t bother going to film school to make a film but instead apply for a position at SA or FILMVIC etc as it’s almost a guarantee for your mates to hand you some cash after a year or so of building your own personal contacts. What do you think Ros.

User ID not verified.

As a few commenters have said it really comes down to early stage development and indeed project conception. A simplistic view below…but the Australian Film Industry is nicely summed up metaphorically in the film ‘Adaptation’, and that writers quest for something that will engage…

Too many Australian scripts are conceived in a vacuum and tend towards over authored, naval gazing ideas that somehow end up being financed linear films (due to odd funding regime and nothing much else being submitted). These films, even though they may have had some script development on the way, miss some key advice, to consider simply jettisoning the whole project and work on something more ‘engaging’ for an audience (genre and beyond). Too many though make it through and with dialogue tweaks here and there and fantastic cinematography, think they are are on the right track!

This emperors clothes problem (‘bad films not noticed until they are shown at festival or in the cinema and normal folk point the finger’) will only go away when certain penalty measures are put in place for these ‘audience/box office/dvd’ failures so the people involved at all points in the chain are not allowed to make the same errors of judgement…as it stands I see all responsibility being dumped on the writer/producer vs the process itself as the culprit – that allows non-engaging linear films to end up in front of dwindling audiences. Oh and there is that multi platform, transmedia thing – but don’t get me started…:) My presentation to Film Vic last week covers some of that – http://www.slideshare.net/haye.....ommunities

User ID not verified.

Ros Walker, thanks for your comments. Very illuminating, particularly on the percentages of depressing drama scripts that are being submitted. I would however humbly suggest that the funding bodies are reaping what they sowed. Predominantly they funded depressing dramas in the past, and now seem surprised that the majority of following submissions are of the same ilk. The volume of work required for an application is immense, so filmmakers understandably are only going to apply with projects that have the greatest chance of success and that is by submitting scripts similiar to what have been funded previously (unless there is some radical new incentive introduced).

I was also very amused by your comment, “Agencies do celebrate successes…” when referring to international awards. You obviously misunderstood or ignored my main point in the previous post! Awards from pretentious French-speaking arts administrators are only important to the filmmakers and the funding bodies. The majority of audiences (ie those outside the arthouses) do not care. Film like Mad Max 2, The Castle, Crocodile Dundee and Wolf Creek probably didn’t win many awards but were all incredibly successful films, by any measure. A film that receives funding or investment is really only a success if it makes a profit. Just ask the (non-government) investors. Anything else is a failure or simply mutual masturbation. Which sounds better if you say it with French accent (I know those funding bodies get turned on by it).

Matt Norman, I really enjoyed your post and totally agree. Years ago I found out that the so-called independent local filmmakers who were being used (and paid) to assess film applications for the state arts department, were approving funding for films in which they themselves were going to be employed on. It seems that applying for a film grant doesn’t preclude you from sitting on the assessment panel and approving your own application. Nepotism? Cronyism? Corruption? Or just a very happy coincidence?

I also was once approved by the relevant assessor for some career development funding, only to be rejected at the last minute on the basis that the head of the state film corporation didn’t personally know me and so wouldn’t sign the cheque. The funding was instead given to her friend who had just finished his tenure at the state arts department. My colleagues who attended the conference in Sydney didn’t see him there. A lovely little junket to visit friends interstate I guess.

The head of the state film corp was eventually gotten rid of. The newspaper article claimed she was leaving to look after a sick relative overseas. That is simply Orwellian newspeak for “sacked for gross incompetence”. Or else you might actually believe that one of President Obama’s senior economic advisers voluntarily quit her job to look after her teenage son as he enters high school. Yeah, right. There is zero accountability.

I’ve had several other experiences which has made me realise that it is who you know that really decides if you get funding. What you are potentially capable of is entirely irrelevant.

The sad fact is that despite new governments and new announcements, nothing has changed. The same funding bodies still operate in exactly the same way. The Australian film industry may only succeed in spite of them, not because of them. The government film money will continue to be wasted, without any independent oversight.

The entire system needs a radical overhaul. Instead of allowing us to meekly apply to their royal throne (like the orphan Oliver asking for more porridge) the funding bodies should be getting out into the community, uncovering talent and assisting them to achieve success. The system currently works the opposite.

Alternatively we should put all the funding applications in a bucket, and draw them out at random like a lottery. Given that less than 10 of the over 150 films funded by the govt over the last decade have returned a profit, an entirely random approach would almost certainly work better. And that pretty much sums up the contribution of the govt funding bodies to the Australian film industry. Less than random.

User ID not verified.

Sorry Peter I just read this. Well said. What I find really interesting is that we all know that the boys club are reading this stuff on encore but refuse to do anything about it. It also amazes me that we still have a gutless spoon fed industry that can’t stand up for itself.

I sit and laugh when ever I hear the latest news about who gets what funding. I know that it’s official crime being publicized as Australian content?? :0

User ID not verified.

Ros Walker maybe you could simply reply to Matt Norman’s original query….or is it a little too close to the bone?

“Have a look at the names in the investment or development committees at the agencies- most have substantial credits- noting that agency boards are usually selected for corporate governance. The pressure is on from government to get audiences for Australian films to justify their investment. ”

What pressure, where? The Oz Film Brand has been ruined by a boys club culture and laconic funding bodies, with little or no regard for the creative life of a struggling filmmaker.

Yes Ros they have substantial “credits” and those credits can simply be a litany of credits that are sub standard slop , or a mildly successful film, warmly reviewed, made twenty – thirty years ago that would be a flop today. We are dripping in narrative, the audience is savvy but our industry is groaning with layers of solidified hacks, who couldn’t cut it in production so they work at a funding body, make a few contacts and get the flow on nod for their upcoming production. I have seen this first hand, it is disgusting to witness. There needs to be some kind of oversight committee screening out shocking acts of nepotism. People working in funding bodies need to be held accountable. More money needs to be spread across script development. Yes writers work in a vacuum, that’s nothing new or a bad thing. What is needed is the work coming out of that vacuum to be appraised and the level of producer intelligence increased. Personally I got sick of pitching a film about “dream theft” falling on deaf ears, obviously Mr Nolan didn’t and found the right ears for that concept to fall into. Good writers take chances, sometimes those chances can go out on a limb, it takes a shrewd kind of intelligence to see a grain of potential in a concept film and nurture that grain into a fully formed idea…script
Funding bodies..where is the script development money?
Ros Walker..your smugness makes me sick, we don’t need anymore coasters, take a back seat thanks. This industry needs a drastic dose of accountability
An oversight committee for govt funding and an end to shocking accounts of nepotism…NOW!

User ID not verified.