Screen Australia CEO responds to the Nicole Kidman travel grant story

A major Australian film? A film with a British lead about a British man in Singapore? No wonder this is the first I’ve heard of it being ‘Australian’. The writer, original story, and two of the three producers are British, with a mainly non-Australian cast. Screen Australia’s role shouldn’t be focussed on promoting films with big names in them already – they have the ball rolling enough that they should seek out private investment.

Good on you, Graeme, for braving the vicious world of online media – definitely a step forward for Screen Australia having a CEO prepared to engage with the punters. I think the point of the story has been missed (and BTW Alex not highlighted strongly enough in the original article), which is why can a tax-payer funded organisation bend its own rules about funding caps as it chooses? This seems to be occurring more frequently at Screen Australia with no transparency until after the deal is done. You have your work cut out for you addressing this & the club culture if SA is to evolve & remain relevant over the next decade – which most people hope it does. I wish you every success in your new role & look forward to hearing more from you on Mumbrella.

I’m pleased that Screen Australia are helping key creatives get to the top international film markets to sell and promote a film and australian talent. I’d be more worried if they weren’t. and ditto Bystander, well done Mr Mason.

I’m not sure how the article was misinformation when their own website incorrectly stated that Ms Kidman had received funding from Screen Australia.

Perhaps Mr Mason would be better served by correcting the public record by acknowledging it was incorrect due to their own miscommunication. It seems in his reply he would prefer to deflect blame elsewhere.

‘A great result for the Australian screen industry and Australia as a whole?’ $5M so far while they shlep around on taxpayers money? Do these people actually read their own press releases before they go out? And what ever happened to AUSTRALIAN CONTENT in AUSTRALIAN STORIES as opposed to BRITISH STORIES with the odd Australian actor thrown it? The sooner Screen Australia is disbanded the better for the industry; and with the people and policies they have that should’t be long.

I am producing a piece for the upcoming Perth festival fringe, to whom do i apply to get the $10,000 to promote it?

The writer is Australian
The cast is Australian
The director is Australian
The producers are Australian

I am available to fly anywhere in Australia to promote it (Cairns and the NT would be nice)

Thanks

Mike,
There is no need for Australian films to be solely about Australians. In this case, as I understand it, it was an Australian/Scottish co-production and therefore probably produced as a treaty film.
Australians have a natural interest in this subject – the Burma railway – and the fine story on which the film is based could have been based on the extraordinary life of an Australian… but wasn’t.
Teplitsky did a very fine job directing a film which, by its very nature, was going to be difficult material. It was engaging, the performances were excellent and the design, cinematography and music were a pleasing showcase of local talent.
The nature of a film made through a co-production treaty is that (effectively) both sides pay for certain elements that relate to what is local to them, i.e. Colin Firth would have been paid from the Scottish financial contribution. As much of the film was shot substantially in Australia or with Australian crews and an Australian Producer, it certainly qualifies as Australian. And there is Nicole Kidman as well.
Whether there was a mistake on the Screen Aus website or not, it is a very clear benefit to the investors (including Scroz) to have Kidman at the launch and they are to applauded not ridiculed for giving the film the best chance of success.

@offalspokesperson You can apply to the Australia Council. You may also have access to state funding bodies, even local councils often have grants. Fringe artists almost never apply because you have to do it so far out that they’re often still performing their last show when the grants are due.

Mike – the attitude of trying to support ‘AUSTRALIAN CONTENT’ or tell ‘AUSTRALIAN STORIES’ is everything that is wrong with the government funding model in Australia.

Government should serve the purpose of creating a vibrant and sustainable film industry in Australia, not to dictate the type of films that are made here.

If we think it’s important to have films that tell an ‘Australian Story’, setup an Australian cultural film art commission where they have an allocated yearly budget to making films that tell ‘Australian Stories’.

For the remainder of the industry, government needs to help build an industry that can stand on its own two feet through innovative policy and providing funding where Australia either has a competitive disadvantage or where it is commercial unviable for private industry to help.

As far as I can see, both state and federal governments do little to address none of these things.

Films that feature ‘Australian content’, are not generally audience pleasers – box office numbers reflect this. Furthermore, with Australia having some of the highest theatre ticket prices in the world, a comparatively low budget Australian film can’t stack up against any given American films that are playing at any given time.

The government has created some major road blocks for Australian producers.

Since the demise of 10BA, there is no longer any incentive for private investors to invest in Australian films. Whilst this scheme was abused and had corrupted, filmmakers desperately need a new policy that is better regulated that encourages private investment in film.

The Producer Offset is a great scheme, but has two major failings. The first is the requirement that the film features ‘SIGNIFICANT AUSTRALIAN CONTENT’. Whilst Australian producers are out there fighting to raise private capital in a hostile market, having the mandate by the Government that the only way they will have access to a financial incentive that makes the film viable is if it is the type of film that audiences, statistically speaking, do not want to see, nor will it get any serious release because exhibitors or distributors will not take a risk on ‘AUSTRALIAN CONTENT”.

The second problem with the Producer Offset is the absurd eligibility requirements. The first of these is the requirement to have an Australian Theatrical Distributor attached, as they believe that the tiny handful of Australian distributors who never take risks or give any serious release to Australian films is an accurate gauge of market interest. The second is that Screen Australia only recognises a ‘Feature Film’ as being a film that will have a minimum theatrical release of 5 or more screens in three Australian states or territories.

The Producer Offset could create success for the industry if it were up to the filmmakers to decide what type of film would be made and for the filmmaker to decide how he or she would like to release it and where they would like to release it. We could even see a surge in international filmmakers coming to Australia to make their content here, employing local crews, talent and facilities. Without the restriction on content, distribution or release, it will allow Australian filmmakers to become innovative about the type of films they make and how they’ll find their audiences. Chances are they’ll have a greater chance of profitability, which then addresses the problem of finding private investors.

If the incentive for private investment and the producer offset is fixed, there should be no need for Screen Australia or any of the state funding bodies to have to ‘invest’ in the production of films. The success of Australian producers should be based on their entrepreneurial skills in finding capital and selecting projects that will build an audience both at home and abroad. It can only be a GOOD thing, if the producers that only know how to get funding by filling out government forms and being a part of the ‘club’ fall completely off the map.

Instead – these government bodies should be aiming to try and fix the part of the industry that is inherently broken; exhibition and distribution. This is where government intervention could help see that locally made films get the same level of promotion and exhibition as the American films, which make up the vast bulk of theatre attendance. Incentives could be provided by way of lowering the ticket price to theatre goers for locally made films to help start a change in behaviour.

Australia without question has what it takes to make great films that make profit and generate export dollars – the government and funding bodies just need re-think how they can help, rather than hinder.

Poor Screen Australia .. either pilloried for not doing enough, or strips torn off them for doing it for the wrong people/films – or in the wrong locations.

As a public institution they should be able to speak to their decisions and have them robustly scrutinised. But if one wants to critique the agency, ideally one would have a more interesting and more thoughtful line of reasoning than “I’m making a film, I deserve $10k too” or the jingoistic application of the caps lock key.

And by the way you would have to be delusional not to realise that the reason Kidmans name was on the application was because the producer wanted to squeeze as much money out of Screen Australia for travel as he could. Too bad for you that Mumbrella busted you!

@ Jeremy you say that films that feature ‘Australian content’, are not generally audience pleasers – box office numbers reflect this. REALLY? Strictly Ballroom? Shine? Mad Max? Crocodile Dundee? Your solution is the standard neo liberal neo conservative survival of the fittest model. But how pathetic your analysis is! Have you ever financed a film Jeremy? Do you understand how the global economic paradigm for financing film has changed now that ancillary markets provide little revenue? And you expect Governments to FIX exhibition and distribution? How? Give them the money? What a great idea! Lower the ticket price! Why didn’t anyone think of that!? You want some models to think about Jeremy? Try China, India Spain, France Latin America. You won’t see Colin Firth anywhere.

But what you will see Jeremy is stories that reflect their culture their characters their psyche their stories. That’s what sustains a film industry.