Film Victoria’s ‘open letter to our Practitioners’

Nice letter.
Doesn’t really explain as to why some funding programs have simply evaporated into thin air, and why there is even less money for the funding of script development. I think I’m like most filmmakers…wondering how they could find $45,000 for a send off and can’t find a cracker to develop the new ideas and screenplays that actually drive innovation in this industry. With regard to being accountable and transparent..saying it is one thing..being it is another

[comment edited] How could you spend $45K on a three hour booze up and not feel a remote amount of guilt in the process? They must actually think the money belongs to them. Nice letter Jeni..it says nothing..and is a pretty sad attempt to bury this shameless expenditure and look to the future..what future..what future does anybody in this f@#KED up industry have if decisions like this are being made. They just drank and ate a filmmakers annual wage..and for what? To say goodbye? Goodbye..thanks a lot.

that’s $45,000 they didn’t spend on film development.

they deserve to be fired.

I read weasel words like ‘moving forward’ and my eyes glaze over.

“and we look forward to working with you into the future.”

Really? I can’t even get a response via email.

The only time I have approached Film Vic for help, with regard to a co production with a Chinese company, they actually gave me the number of a competitor, telling me they would be able to help!!

I think all film funding should be scrapped, get rid of the gate keepers, bring in tax breaks instead, like the old 10ba.

Not the first time this has happened –
http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/.....never-made

http://www.themercury.com.au/a.....nment.html

“Now it’s time to focus on the future…”

No, I say it’s time to focus on the recent past and explain why they spent $45,000 on a party!
Having grown up in a third world country, this is the kind of open letters and speeches that I’m used to, a forgive and forget mentality that allows those in power to use public funds as their private bank account. I never thought I’d see this in Australia.
Shame on you, Film Victoria.

“Working with you in the future”..on what?..with what? What future? Unless you were one of the 280 invites and guzzling down development funding for at least 4 screenplays..they won’t be working with you in the future and could care less about what you are trying develop. What an utterly disgusting display of callous indifference…I hope the State Government hit them with the full force of everything at their disposal. For three years I tried to gain access to some funding from a now defunct script development program. In the end I gave up and shipped the script overseas.
Personally I want to hear the chain of command and the entire board of Film Victoria rationalize this expenditure..in full. What were they thinking? They weren’t thinking about filmmakers that’s for sure…not for a second. The thing that is, most of the people I know aren’t surprised.. not one bit..that’s what is the most disturbing thing…the level of resigned apathy from an industry in crisis. Why do we allow these cultural institutions to evolve like this. Organizations set up to support our creative talent simply attract the kind of people who could care less about actually making films.

And to see Andrew Denton putting up $30,000 for innovative content..the kind your grandmother would disown you for, well done Mr Denton, good on you, showing the innovative way forward..and here is Film Victoria..with $45k to throw at NOTHING..NOTHING..nothing comes from this, a CEO is leaving and they throw $45K and there is NOTHING to show for it. [comment edited] Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new age of innovation [comment edited]. What does Film Victoria have to say to all those filmmakers knocked back from funding over the years for as little as $10,000 or less, with the usual excuse “We have limited funds”. Who authorized this expenditure? the parting CEO Sandra Sdraulig? If so, that was a really nasty passing shot. If Film Victoria are as passionate as they say..how could they just guzzle $45K? Screen Australia pumped a large chunk of change into A Heartbeat Away and we haven’t heard a single word of rationalization from them..nothing. The Tender Hook had an equal budget..utter flop…nothing from Film Victoria on that..and now $45K on a going away party and all they can do is write a letter saying how accountable and transparent they are. [Comment edited]

The tone of Jenni Tosi’s cliché ridden letter – all spin, no content – suggests that she thinks Victorian filmmakers are fools who will buy this tosh! ‘Going forward’! Really, Jenni! But those responsible for this $45,000 party will get off without a slap on the wrist if all Victorian filmmakers do is write angry anonymous posts on Encore. This will change nothing. No number of such posts, no matter how well-reasoned, how articulate, will present the status quo with a real challenge! Nor will letters to the Board or to the relevant Minister. (I’m sure many of you have done this already). You need to band together and use your imaginations to find a novel way to kick up the kind of fuss that the media and government cannot ignore – a film perhaps (preferably funny) that is screened online, goes viral, and gets your point(s) across. THE COCKTAIL PARTY!

The Premier is also the Arts Minister and it seems he wasn’t even invited to this shindig..what friggin game are the playing? Is the party over, do they sense the dread of a new government? I simply cannot understand the rationalization of this $45K party. What I’d also like to know is why people who sit on the board of Film Victoria are also getting funding? How does that work? Why does that work? Why do we accept it? Its a massive conflict of interest. So Jeni if you are transparent and accountable can you tell the industry why at least two board members have received funding in the last twelve months and one board member seems to be getting a steady flow of funding for years, making films that seem to bomb with the public. Can you explain how this works and why.. as in a little transparency and accountability so we can all look to the future and go forward…I hope.

Doug, you make some really valid points, and like you, it bugs the hell out of me, however the sad thing is that you’ll probably never hear back from Film Vic. If this was France, there would be uproar. Who’s up for it?

I mean I could name names, but you only have to do the most basic search to connect the dots. When you do start connecting the dots it really is just sad. Its not a meritocracy out there, you can make films that bore the audience to death or continue to roll out the same boring social realist narrative dross year in and year out and not get cut off from funding but rewarded for it..simply because you sit on the board of a funding body. I’m all for making an audience work for a film, but some of these films aren’t work, they’re just boring and unoriginal. One film in particular was so pretentious in the extreme it would have shut down the career of 99% of writer/directors..nope..”here’s some more money, the audience simply doesn’t understand you or care about society like you do”. I mean really..if you’re going to stand on the transparent and accountable soapbox..actually be it. Don’t write a letter that prays for a better future. Be accountable for the past and don’t repeat it. Our film culture isn’t an industry that looks after the careers a of a few, it should be an industry where the project in question is judged on the merit of its idea, without the smell of nepotism anywhere near it. if all that you have delivered is successive mediocrity for years, why can you keep getting funding? If you can’t understand that and think that view is wrong, then the level of disconnect and the funding body “we have built” is utterly demented. Answer the question..how can people sitting on the Film Victoria board access funding year in and year out, while the rest of us have to struggle to get the most minor level of recognition? If you can’t see a shocking level of conflict of interest there..maybe I’ll have to graphically connect the dots for you Jeni..its wrong..just like spending 45K on a piss up is wrong.
Of course you have some public relations expert whispering in your ear like a chardonnay swilling King Lear saying “this will pass”..well it won’t pass, people are fed up and its a culture that has flourished for way to long and you need to be accountable for the culture of the past and address it. The party is over.

The tragedy is that there are many hard working people in Film Victoria, who do care about the industry. [Comment edited] There is a transition happening in our industry, and unless we get some direction from above, to drive our cottage industry into the real world, we will continue with the self interest and the excuses.

And here I was thinking I was alone (!!) in having unhelpful, negative experiences with Film Victoria in the past … and not wanting to have anything to do with them, if possible … especially when you hear it’s the same old people giving funding to the same few eligible candidates (yawn) … I’m not new to the industry but the state and federal film body prerequisites are like an antidote for creativity and passion …

Hang the bastards

Perspective people please. The majority of people who attended that party were people who actually work in the film industry, not people who wish they did, as I suspect the majority of bloggers here to be. They were ‘practitioners’. While I agree that 45,000 was excessive these events are in fact vital networking opportunities in which practitioners can generate and consolidate projects. They are just as important as funding rounds, and in this case represent a sum of 150 dollars per practitioner for an opportunity that could make a massive difference to a project. Perhaps if that fee were cut down to 50 dollars per head – 15,000 for the event – that might make the bloggers and ranters happy, but I suspect not because the vitriol in the comments here is really coming from a rather more self-serving and ultimately self-defeating place.

Wow Dexter..nice shot..I think you hit the nail on the head ” The majority of people who attended that party, were people who actually work in the film industry, not people who wish they did, as I suspect the majority of bloggers here to be”
Its this smug and self satisfied belief that is the problem we’re all talking about. Dismissing people as ranters (anybody with an opinion that challenges the solidified view) who see obvious problems in an industry riddled with stifling nepotism that kills innovation. If this kind of networking at a $150 a head is so important..make these elite practitioners chip in for a ticket and a going away pressie for the CEO. $150 a head or as you say $50 a head is chump change for this vital networking opportunity that could make a massive difference for a project. I just pumped $15,000 into my own short film, didn’t have a problem with that, saw it as a great calling card for future networking possibilities (that’s if I ever get invited to these important shindigs), if I was to add up all the unpaid work I have done on other smaller productions over the years to help struggling filmmakers it’d be $30,000+. Dexter “I suspect the vitriol in your comments is really coming from a rather more self-serving and ultimately self-defeating place”. If you think sitting on the board of a funding body and also accessing funding is fine and just another networking possibility then you are so ingrained into a culture that is so anti-innovation it’s actually lost sight of its intended mission, to support filmmakers, established, and emerging.
The thing is established filmmakers who produce average work that doesn’t engage the audience or entertain seem to get rewarded with further funding, whereby emerging filmmakers see funding programs slowly eroded and are labelled tire kickers by arrogant self serving types like yourself.
[comment edited]
Working in the industry..with cynical crappy ideas..how is that innovative?

Well said Doug.
As for Dexter Russell, perhaps people who are already so successful in the industry should start depending less on Government support for networking opportunities and let ‘people who wish they worked in the film industry’ use those resources.
I don’t understand why producers with successful projects must have every single networking opportunity paid for by the Government – whether it’s this Film Victoria party, or a $5000 grant to go to Cannes.

Oops, I didn’t mean to post anonymously. Miguel Gonzalez here (comment #18)

@Dexter..as for perspective Dexter..how tight are these “people working in the industry?”, you still think footing the bill at $50 a head is a prudent spend of taxpayers money? $15,000 is a short film for an emerging filmmaker. If the networking possibilities are so important at these invite only functions for generating and consolidating projects, make these working stiffs pay for a ticket. I mean you just don’t get it do you?
There’s a revolution going on out there and while you’re quaffing champers and banging on to a selection of our industry’s “best and nepotistic” other filmmakers, yes your “ranters” and “bloggers”.. (yes expressing an idea or an opinion is part of the creative process so deal with it)..are writing, producing and networking away with the next generation of filmmakers who are being liberated by accessible technology..while others who are established (usually with a very questionable track record) stick out their hands for more cash because they meet the proven criteria to deliver. Irrespective of the fact that a large percentage of that delivery fails to connect. A vast majority of TV shows that bomb with audiences..get given more funding.. Writer/Directors with a litany of questionable social realist content who sit on the board are given more funding and on and on it goes…
I was talking to a very talented filmmaker in his late twenties the other day and I said he should look at accessing some funding..he laughed and said “why would I bother and waste my time, they aren’t interested in me, they’re interested in helping out their mates and most of the films they make are boring, the whole industry is full of bullshit, it doesn’t matter how talented you are, its who you know, I make films because I like to make them, I know I’ll never have a career in this country that I can make a living from..that lifestyle is for those in the know..if I want a career I need to go overseas”. That could be the next Peter Weir or David Michod talking..and if you don’t begin to address this and stem the brain drain..we will have bigger problems in the future than we do now.
Comments like that from the next generation of filmmakers..I hear it time and time again…like a mantra. I say to all those who have fostered this culture of self serving negativity..you’re a bunch of pretentious tossers, who care about nothing but your own grandiose illusions of what you feel to be important..yourselves!
Shame on you all..and shame on you for pretending to be accountable and transparent..what a waste of talent is all I can say.
As for those that sit on funding boards..how much is enough..and why are your ideas..so much more important than those sitting in the shadows?
We need funding bodies, we need gatekeepers, we need to be able to curate great stories and content away from the 95% of crap that is out there. But we won’t have innovation if we aren’t prudent with our money and establish a system based on the merit of an idea..not the merit of sitting on a board..or knowing a certain somebody…or ticking the boxes of proven criteria. We need to be able to discover and nurture existing and aspiring talent in a far more ambitious way.
If we can’t do that..what’s the point?

Lots of great comments and observations here. However, I remain unconvinced that this letting off of steam gets any of us anywhere.yes, if there were real dialogue, real debate, within our industry, they would all make a wonderful contribution to it. A brief trip down memory lane:

More than 25 years ago the industry had a major problem that had to do with the way in which 10BA was structured. Everyone bitched and complained about it – somewhat along the lines of these Encore comments. Then a small group of us organized a forum. We packed a cinema to overflowing, debated the problem we all shared in common, voted on a resolution and sent a small contingent to Canberra to argue our case with the Minister. As a result the Legislation was changed.

Whether it be our State Funding Bodies or Screen Australia real change will only occur if, at least metaphorically speaking, there is a cinema full of filmmakers who insisting on transparency and accountability within these bodies.

jamesricketson@gmail.com

Ben Eltham at Crikey:
“I’ve spent most of the last week trying to find someone in the Victorian industry willing to comment on the party. But, tellingly, no one was prepared to go on the record criticising the event. Nor would Film Victoria or its board comment further, referring me back to Tosi’s letter and giving Crikey the strong impression it believes the agency has done nothing wrong.”

Anybody want to get a film up or access funding?
http://film.vic.gov.au/www/htm.....asp?n=1219
Film Victoria are looking for advice and direction

“The truth is that in many parts of the arts, top public servants in funding agencies have almost nothing in common with the penurious artists they represent, effectively occupying a kind of salaried aristocracy in which they enjoy the kind of wages and conditions struggling freelancers can only dream about.

Sdraulig was getting paid upwards of $220,000 a year when she left, according to Film Victoria’s most recent annual report. In contrast, the most recent Australia Council report into artists’ incomes released by Macquarie University Professor David Throsby tells us that more than half of Australia’s artists earn less than $10,000 a year from their practice.”

If its true there is a strong impression within Film Victoria that they have done nothing wrong, then I say wipe the slate clean and start again. If you read the opinions of people like Dexter Russell: ” The majority of people who attended that party were people who actually work in the film industry, not people who wish they did (so people are just born into this are they Dexter?), as I suspect the majority of bloggers here to be”..you sir are so out of touch with the actual realities of this industry you could actually sit down and write something so moronic. This industry relies on a healthy amount of people arriving at the coal face (wishing) with ideas…scripts..concepts…working in the industry doesn’t actually mean you possess any of these. Its the struggling Screenwriter, the struggling Director, the struggling Producer etc etc that lives off passion and intermittent income that keeps this industry innovative. If we left it up to the people who work in the industry we’d get what we have now…a stagnant pond filled with infinite rationalizations..”these are important networking events”. If they are Dexter..get some private sponsorship and organize your networking events. Not because one CEO on a fat wage is jumping ship. Its an utter myth that she “turned around this industry” what bullshit! Personally I’m sick to death of meeting these wankers in the industry who think they are players, but haven’t got an original idea to rub together and just suck and the public teet..your days over..reach out to the next generation quick smart or you’ll become dinosaurs(if you aren’t already). I’m always surprised that when I meet people who work for funding bodies how little they actually know about filmmaking..or filmmakers

“Sdraulig was getting paid upwards of $220,000 a year when she left, according to Film Victoria’s most recent annual report. In contrast, the most recent Australia Council report into artists’ incomes released by Macquarie University Professor David Throsby tells us that more than half of Australia’s artists earn less than $10,000 a year from their practice.

But the Sandra Sdrauligs of this world don’t often mix with the lumpenproletariat of the creative classes. Instead, their privileged position gives them access to wealth and power through the kind of glamor that the screen industry can bestow. And, because of the unique position of power they occupy, few will publicly speak out.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/.....ilmmaking/

PS: I happen to know for a fact that Film Victoria are deeply disturbed by the volley of negative feedback they are receiving..this is just a small percentage of what’s arriving daily at their office. What selfish disconnect can do to a once proud organization. To think they just drank and ate all that money..couldn’t even give a cracker to Open Channel to buy some camera’s. Why do funding bodies champion the illusion of an innovative industry..they don’t give a stuff about the grassroots.

As a representative of a genre which didn’t easily fit guidelines, my experience with Film Vic has been exemplary. Jenni and her team embraced our show, went against the norm and their forward thinking has been rewarded…our project will soon deliver profit to the funding body which can only be good for the production community. I hold Jenni and the team with the utmost respect – they have faith, they trust and they stand by our television community in all it’s forms.

Maybe this might lighten up the mood:
https://www.youtube.com/user/macguffinable?feature=mhsn#p/a/u/0/uL2fG6oZ168
Lets look to all the future piss ups!

As I figured. Just for the record, I’ve received around $4,000 of Film Victoria’s funds over the last seven years. I’ve made that go a long way. The bottom line is this is an industry that generates $1bn per annum and has one of the most generous funding systems in the world. Do what everybody else does. Instead of crying ‘why not me’, get on with your work, do your best and for god’s sake stop whingeing.

Re: transparency.

“Excellence has nothing to fear from observation.”

Mark, I agree with you – get rid of the gatekeepers because thats what Film Victoria are. Gatekeepers awarding “development funding” to people who THEY feel will be sucessful.

10 years ago I did a student placement with “Film Production” company in Melbourne. Nearly all their money came from a combination of Film Vic and AFC funding. If you check their website they are still around but I do not recognise one of their works. They short film / animation / drama / documentary is made then seems to go into an archive somewhere.

I think its shameful after 10 years they are still receiving gov funding and this is just one example. It also proves cronism and nepotism is alive and well.

This industry needs an overhaul. We need to ditch this gov. funding for film which fosters cronism and sameness and concentrate attention instead on projects like Kickstarter.com or even how The Tunnel was made. Funding models like this are innovative, allow writers and film makers to reach their audience directly.

Australia has incredibly talented film makers here. Lets give them a chance to shine.

S.

All Victorian filmmakers who believe that they have not been dealt with appropriately by Film Victoria could (and I believe should) make a complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman. Not only will be Ombudsman be obliged to look at each complaint but s/he may, if there are enough such complaints, start to ask questions of his/her own at the highest level of government.

Is it my imagination or are more and more contributors to this and other debates @Encore now using their names and not hiding their identity? If so, this is an encouraging development. Whist I can understand the reasons why filmmakers are reticent to stand up and be counted I think it is only when there is a critical mass of filmmakers prepared to do so that the powers-that-be will take notice. The ‘Arab Spring’ should be our model – all those in the Middle East who literally risked their lives for what they believed, no longer prepared to remain ‘anonymous’

jamesricketson@gmail.com

So Dexter, in your world we just accept everything the way it is, don’t comment, don’t give feedback and just think $45K on a party is fine. Whingeing is one thing, sitting down to consider what is wrong and expressing it is another thing entirely.
I’m not saying they have it completely wrong but wasting all that money..and thinking nothing is wrong in doing it…is shameful…just like being on the board of Film Vic and accessing funding..repeatedly..without actually producing work that suggests you should be able to do so…is wrong. Speaking up about this isn’t whingeing, its pointing out a massive flaw in the system.

Dear Film Victoria,

It’s my 40th in October. I was wondering if you could please send me an application for the party funds on offer. $45,000 could be used wisely at my birthday I promise. For the sake of making it a film event I’ll tape it on my kids camera. All invited!!!! Strippers, Alcohol, Drugs, Belly Dancers, a Dancing monkey and I’m going all out and purchasing the Australian film industry, hanging it up in the lounge room and beating it with a stick until money falls out of it.

Please reply as I feel it’s really important that I receive this funding as it’s been a LONG DECADE and i’d really like to blow off steam. Thanks Film Victoria….

I really don’t see how the Hell they could manage to spend $45 k on a party…even if they had a conjurer and a mariarchi band!

I wonder how many Victorian film makers believe that they could shoot a whole digital feature film for $45 k…

The thing is, you could handle the nepotism, the board members accessing funding year in an year out for any passing fancy of an idea that sprung to mind, if the work being produced was connecting with audiences, was innovative, interesting etc etc..but at the end of the day it isn’t. Our TV shows with the exception of a few are lame and boring with characters you can neither sympathize with or remotely care about. Laid was awful…just boring and littered with characters that were neither funny or interesting…and what happens? Hey here’s some more funding. This cycle of repeat offending happens year in and year out, where delivery is paramount and the quality of that delivery is a fleeting after thought. So what we end up with is this clique of people who have been lucky enough to be able to deliver a few shows, some have made some good films or TV shows, most haven’t and because this clique tick all the boxes regarding proven criteria they can keep accessing funding.
If they deliver, they get paid, if they can get a show up they access funding.
This doesn’t allow an industry to evolve built around the quality of an idea or a screenplay, what it breeds is an industry built around clique’s, where the quality of the writing is suspect or simply arrogant and ill considered in the extreme, flogging average ideas that are anything but innovative with the exception of maybe one of two programs every five years or more, maybe a film will sneak through now and then, predominately the system is built around supporting the predictable idea. Film Victoria rely on industry feedback to assess these unoriginal ideas, the feedback is usually tainted and out of touch, mainly because this feedback comes from the same people wheeling out the same feedback for the last thirty years. These people get on the development board, where they get to give advice, do a quick funding search and you’ll see how it works. It really is shockingly cynical and selfish in the extreme, but its how we have allowed the game to be played by a various cliques. So if you’re a serious young filmmaker, how do you get past this entrenched nepotism called the funding system. Good luck is all I can say, you could waste a decade trying, all the time sitting by and watching cynical, predictable projects get the greenlight. Everything funnels down to an industry that cycles around a handful of people that they can trust to deliver..irrespective of whether that delivery is of a quality that will actually connect with an audience.
Its this cycle that needs to be broken and filmmakers need to be encouraged to write and produce ideas that challenge and entertain the audience, not preach or pander or utterly indulge the social realist mumblings of a writer/director sitting on the board. If we can’t begin to really sit down and think about what the wisest approach to spending 45K is and have a pragmatic outcome beyond drinking and eating it then Film Victoria will continue to look like a funding body out of touch with the daily realities of the struggling filmmaker. I’m very interested to see what kind of innovative funding programs Film Victoria will be wheeling out in the new financial year. I doubt there will be anything challenging on offer. There are some funding programs screaming to be rolled out, where Film Victoria could partner with the private sector, I seriously doubt if they can even notice what these programs could look like or how to implement them..especially if they still think spending 45K on a legs up, is a prudent spend of taxpayers money.
Film Victoria..how are you being transparent and accountable? Can you walk us through it? @Dexter..it isn’t whingeing..we simply want to evolve away from the nepotistic swamp we have created. In the end we are as much to blame for tolerating this funding culture as much as they are to blame for allowing it to fester and become so entrenched that we can’t see an alternative and if some do they are labelled negative, cynical, haters, pedestrian, dreamers, whingers etc etc..
I’d say you can’t get anymore cynical, hating, arrogant, and out of touch than spending much needed funds on a party for yourself and your mates…with our money. How and why does the arts in this country attract these kinds of people?

They could fix all their problems very easily if they would just create a very simple opportunity for directors to come in, sit down and talk to them, face to face, show them some work examples, show them some scripts, pitch some ideas for projects and discuss what they’d like to do. And then, if all goes well, simply support the directors in question in the development, preproduction, production, post production and distribution of projects that have been agreed upon. A simple opportunity for directors to come in and sit down and discuss things with the people who run Film Vic would be an ideal start-point. What I recall of my dealings with Film Vic is sending a script, waiting half a bloody year for them to have one meeting where they would discuss it and then getting it sent back with a standard rejection letter. And when I spoke to them on the phone, instead of helpful advice, I had the Film Vic basically telling me why, in her opinion, no one would want to buy a cinema ticket to see a science fiction film or a horror movie or an action thriller, when they can just watch TV. There are arguments against any film, but they are irrelevent, all that matters is how to make a film good, make it exciting, put interesting and popular actors into it, attract attention to it, sell it, make a profit from it. This is what should matter! Arguments against films should be left to critics!

And then something like “The Book of Revelation” can be presented and get the greenlight and then that Director gets successive funding and gets to sit on the development board and access more funding..how, why, where’s the merit? So if you’re an emerging filmmaker or somebody who’s been battling away for years trying to access funding it is very very annoying to see people continually accessing funding when you simple cannot see any merit in awarding this successive funding, if they made successful films you could understand it..on a business level why would you keep backing a venture that wasn’t proven with the exception of delivery? It seems that funding bodies are focused on building certain careers and not others and I’ve never understood why or how this works, creative merit and prudent business decision making don’t seem to register at all in the appraisal, if it did those mentioned above wouldn’t be able to access funding because A) they sit on the development board (nepotism) and B) they haven’t had any success with a litany of productions..so if Film Victoria are intending to be transparent and accountable come out and answer this question, “why do certain filmmakers sitting on the development board access repeated funding whilst failing to prove to the majority of people with half a brain for cinema that they will deliver to the audience something that will register on an entertainment level and prove to stand some chance of being profitable?”. Any answer will do.
The times I’ve talked to those at Film Victoria as to what would work commercially and what wouldn’t I’ve always walked away thinking “they haven’t a friggin clue and don’t possess an inch of vision for what might be innovative”. Not because they weren’t interested in my idea, but successive ideas from others as well and then you see what gets funding and a very high percentage of that is questionable. Now and then something like Snowtown will get through the gates, that’s an utter rarity. Whats the grand plan for the next ten years Film Vic? What careers are you going to back? Are you going to allow some radical thinking on the board? Or are you going to stack the board with another group committed to stoking their own fire?
I don’t think this industry could take another 10 years of nepotism and substandard vision. Already the emerging generation of filmmakers see the industry as being totally “full of it” and “out of touch”…with nothing on the radar to access at all in terms of funding for emerging filmmakers (you drank and ate a nice chunk of that). It seems you have to somehow get buddy buddy with the same old fossils delivering average content and if you can’t do that..don’t bother
What a really innovative industry we’ve got ourselves here..

Maybe we are throwing the baby out here. As far as I can see, the filmmakers who have received funding aren’t bad people. They are committed people who try very hard to make successful content. And employ many people in the attempt. The problem is, it is very hard to make engaging content to a mass audience to create a viable commercial industry. Without a commercial industry we are condemned to a cottage industry of starving practitioners. We don’t want to be a state that is all about innovative emerging filmmakers, which usually translates to low budget, alternative, underdeveloped content. A bit of vision is required to encourage ambitious projects (read expensive) which will hopefully appeal to an international audience and create a sustainable industry. After all, this industry ‘should’ be a viable export industry with real investment and people making a very good living.

Nobody is suggesting that the people who are getting funding are bad people. A lot of filmmakers who receive funding for certain productions deserve it. But there are repeat offenders that make many scratch their heads and say “Why the hell are they funding that, their last two films bombed, why, how are they getting more funding?” And because we would like to believe our funding agencies are transparent and accountable [comment edited]. I personally think that if you’re are sitting on the board of a funding body you should not be able to receive any funding, especially if what you have produced in the past hasn’t been a profitable or entertaining venture.
Is it hard to create innovative entertainment for a mass audience? I’m not saying its easy, but there has been a string of funding decision that are neither innovative or appeal to any kind of genre driven, niche or mass audience, I’m not sure where they fit or why they were funded. I don’t think we have to worry about being a state that is all about emerging innovative filmmakers Sheba, we aren’t. We are a state that consistently rewards a high level mediocrity with the fleeting exception of a few productions here and there. I agree with you that we should be able to export a high level of engaging content and people should be able to make a decent living out of the trade of making films etc…but what we have is a reasonably small pond of people who possess the proven criteria desired by funding bodies to “deliver”, what they are delivering seems to be an afterthought. Not investing in emerging filmmakers means we lose out on export ideas by the truck load. Instead we think its a prudent investment to spend 45k on a going away bash and keep rolling our investment dollars into teams that have had a succession of poor productions, producing films that fail to connect with a local audience, thus killing the Australian film brand. I see change but it is grindingly slow. There’s no one answer to this, there are a myriad of answers, the worst thing is to see so much talent driving in first gear, writers, ( crap TV is killing the original voice of most talented writers, the really talented give up, the marathon is too long, the pathways impossible to scale), directors, producers, actors. I mean seriously what kind of career can you build for yourself as a filmmaker in this country and how? I can wait to see a filmmaker who comes from nowhere with a killer production, with no public funding and really makes a few solidified fossils sit up and take notice. It’ll be interesting to see who the new CEO of Film Victoria is..I hope they have some real vision.

I’m fascinated to hear the CEO describe the Film Vic team as passionate. Passion at Film Vic? What an amazing idea! I recall vividly walking into Film Vic’s Melbourne HQ about 20 years ago and meeting a guy who’s apathy was devastating in it’s power. He listened stoney faced as I tried to explain that I’d met someone who had experience of shooting on cinema film and also had experience in the area of special FX and I’d duly written an action packed screenplay which could showcase his FX and would therefore be commercial and likely to attract a good audience. His response was so flat and demoralising as to sound a lot like “give up and go home”. If he’d suggested that if I wanted to be a film maker that badly I should kill myself, his message wouldn’t have been more loud and clear. So…passionate? Maybe things have changed since those days. I sure hope so…

45K for a party? I’m only upset because I didn’t get an invite. Saved money on a frock I suppose. Australia has a remarkable number of Oscar wins, both in acting and other fields. We have world beating incentives, 40% producer offset, 30% PDV. PIAF. The industry in the US supports 2.4million jobs, $140 billion wages per year. A positive balance of trade in over 150 countries. Over 50% of their revenue comes from overseas. Digital delivery and VOD is opening up the international market. Maybe the vision could look into tapping into that. Maybe a new CEO and the collective wisdom of a new board could throw some light. Hopefully not involving declaring war on the US.

Hi Colin,

I love the irony in your response. If Ruth Harley can’t answer questions put to her on professional letterhead when your company continues to pay back Screen Australia out of receipts for your film sales, then why would she ever actually answer REAL questions with a camera in her face. [comment edited] Please let me know if they are putting this shindig on with $45k. Then count me in for the free grog.

The problem with these Industry Briefings is that they are not designed to encourage debate, dialogue. You have a gaggle of bureaucrats up on stage doing power-point presentations and telling us what a great year its been and how next year is going to be even better. It’s a lecture, essentially. And then, with little time left to address any questions that the filmmakers in the audience wish to ask, the mike is thrown open. But you have to stand in a queue, ask your question and then be provided with an answer that is more spin than substance.

Martha Coleman should be onstage to take questions from filmmakers about ‘A Heartbeat Away’, ‘Sleeping Beauty’ – especially regarding why it was that Screen Australia can breach its own guidelines with these (very expensive) projects but invoke the same guidelines in a way that can only be described as anal with projects that do not tickle Martha’s fancy. And Megan Simpson Huberman should be there to take questions from the floor about ‘Griff the Invisible’, ‘Sleeping Beauty’ and the much awaited ‘Bikini Bandits Downunder.’

Martha and Megan won’t be there ready to engage with the industry in much needed debate but both Screen Australia and Screen NSW will hold this ‘Industry Briefing’ up as an example of how it consults with the industry on a regular basis. Consultation implies dialogue and, if last year’s effort is anything to go by, there will be little dialogue, no debate and Ruth and Tania will disappear as quickly as possible afterwards so that they don’t have to mix with the filmmaking rabble at the post briefing free drinks session!

I would love to be proven wrong. Perhaps Sandy George can steer the ‘Briefing’ away from being a power point lecture into being a debate. Fingers crossed!

So after all this discussion, can any of us actually expect a chance to make a film with Film Victoria’s support after today? Or is it going to remain the same old story of don’t hold your breath waiting for any money or help?

I’d say don’t hold your breath with Film Vic and look elsewhere..I just can’t understand how these film funding bodies actually convince themselves that they are some higher unaccountable power. We are all investors and shareholders in the productions they greenlight and have an interest in understanding how they arrived at giving the go ahead to certain flawed productions. I mean if the appraisal is wrong in such a way that A Heartbeat Away can get funding..you’d want to know why? [comment edited] With Film Victoria..who knows what they are doing? They seem to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel..in their latest press release they are slapping themselves on the back about shorts they’ve funded under the Propellar program…what has happened to that program, is it still going ahead? What do they offer in terms of funding for emerging filmmakers? Not much. Maybe they do..but I didn’t get an invite to the $45K piss up..so what would I know?