Screen Australia needs to stop acting like a club

Haha yeah in Perth its the same, same people always getting the Screenwest funding to make short films and experimental social media projects and so on that never go anywhere.

Still stuck on your first point about the same names always popping up in Screen Australia funded projects. I’ve noticed it too and it’s more than irksome.

I support spending public money on producing local content, even if it isn’t particularly profitable. But SA at least spread the wealth and let more Australians create barely profitable media. The same half dozen producers & directors switching between your TV series and telemovies each year is not fair for anybody.

The club comment rings true for me as well…having been involved in the industry for over 20 years and having submitted many times for funding on really important and innovative projects and then seeing who was awarded the funding…left me and the organisations I represented bewildered and of the strong opinion that monies went to friends and favourites…value for money definitely not !

The latest round of SA funding shows the same ‘crew’ receiving funding time and time again. Spot on Tim. it’s been like that for years now.

Same in Queensland. Same companies, same producers, same actors.
So tonight I’m off to the new Kickstarter in Australia launch in Brisbane to see how I can circumvent the entire industry!

clubs are clubs everywhere – I thought Australia would be different. but the same club mentality is the reason why the industry cannot thrive, broadcasters going bankrupt. And there is always the legitimate excuse, spin

I’ve been seeing, hearing, reading, and experiencing exactly this complaint – that money goes to the same core group of filmakers over and over again – since moving to Australia from the States where I produced for two of the biggest networks in the market. My question now is how to get SA to recognize this terribly depressing problem and change its ways? Start funding new and different projects which the public is clearly hungry for?

Screen Australia has a new Chief Executive who will commence work in November. I wonder if he was consulted. If not it seems very odd that this money should be approved prior to his arrival. Unfortunately Screen Australia since the merging of The Film Finance Corporation and the Australian Film Commission has as many predicted just become a bigger and more opaque arts bureaucracy with lots of spin but very little policy substance. I can’t see The Conversation exploring this allegation.

It’s not fair that they pick and choose who will be funded and many are left in the cold. They should fund artists equally across the board. It had to be fair.

I’ve got no reason to doubt you Tim when you say that in terms of self interest running this articicle hurts you.

But it does seem counter-intuitive. On first scan I suspected there would naturally be some annoyance at possible competitor (The conversation) getting money to cover the area of the industry you cover. Seems like it would be a good article to write in terms of self-interest.

Not saying there’s anything wrong with that – questioning why another body gets the funding for something you already do is fair enough. Just confused at how it could be in your interest to keep shutm about it.

well said

If you are a new writer with a project forget about Screen Australia!!

There’s little doubt to some sort of “Club” mentality but I suspect it is more based on the fact that they fit SA’s criteria for funding.

Potentially that is where the greatest issue lies. If the criteria for funding doesn’t change then the status quo remains.

SA needs to look towards projects that will be commercially successful first, culturally significant second. Commercial success in the industry helps the sustainability and allows for culturally significant projects to be made – unfortunately the reverse is not necessarily so.

The sticking point with this of course is that those who are deciding about funding need to have an understanding of what will be commercially successful

This article steers well clear of ‘sour grapes’ and is really well argued. It’s not so much about whether publications receive funding or not, it’s about how the selection process is arrived at, which is I agree questionable in this case. But having accepted this funding in less than clear circumstances, it will be difficult for The Conversation to keep accusations of ‘cash for comment’ at bay (whether true or not). So much about what Screen Australia does is about perception. As for the funding of projects, it is a small industry here and inevitably, if the criteria is all about number of screen credits then of course the same names will keep coming up. Agencies can only support projects that apply for funding, obviously. It would be very wrong for SA to go touting for projects to fund (though this has been called into question at times).

Add to the list of Club Members, SA Film Corp, SA Arts and every other body which hands out Government funds to organisations who are not required to be accountable for it.

Some years ago, a Theatre Company, in South Australia’s beautiful Mt Gambier, went bust. Not a huge story, until it was discovered that they had been supported by grants from SA Arts, of tens of thousands of dollars per year, for 5 years prior to their demise.

How can 5 years go by without any recognition, let alone accountability, for the downhill slide?

Just one example of hundreds each year around Australia.

Which brings me to my next point, and that is….Aussie Show Business has lost the art of BUSINESS completely.

This Industry does not, and WILL NOT, accept responsibility for operating productively. For too long they’ve relied on other organisations and Governments to get them where they want to go.

Actors graduate Uni with absolutely no knowledge of how to market and promote, administer or manage their product.

As a card carrying member of the MEAA myself, I am often involved in conversations with Actors, who complain about there being “no work around”. And they’re correct – the type of work which flies in the window and lands on your lap as you watch your fave Aussie drama, is in scarce supply. There is no resource at Centrelink to help an Actor find Acting work – that’s the job of the Actor’s Agent’s, and THE ACTOR.

Theatre Companies are formed on a bed of creative genius, and so often ends in frustration and cries of “we tried, but there’s no funding”!

I’m not saying our amazing creative minds have to sell out completely – not that there’s anything wrong with that either – just watch the hilarious and clever sell out of “The Crazy Ones” with Robin Williams & Sarah Michelle Gellar – which is sponsored each week by enormous companies like McDs. I guess it’s the only way the Producers could afford the Cast they have, and why not? – It’s a laugh.

My prediction is that just a sprinkle of commercial intervention would see this industry in Australia, go from relying on Government Funding to a self sufficient hot bed of TV, Stage & Feature Film production.

Dismounting my high horse, I now ask…”is my anonymity chickening out completely?” I’m off to find corporate sponsorship for my next Fringe production – you can buy a whole scene if you wish! 🙂

This Conversation grant is another example of trying to cover Screen Australia’s poor tracks. If it’s for PR, they should appoint Bob Carr to the board.
Screen Australia should cut the crap and just concentrate on supporting Australian film and television production of an Australian mindset that gets the highest audience. As is, Screen Australia is essentially an off balance sheet ABC SBS funding vehicle for programs that suit a very minor proportion of viewers. Only 4 out of 10 dramas went to the three networks, one to Foxtel (sop), and 5 to ABC/SBS. In children’s drama, 2 out of 4 went to ABC/SBS.
Screen Australia should start getting journalistic on its own reporting first. Screen Australia did not even publish in its last annual report, the Australian feature films percentage of box office that they financed (15) – something that that Screen Australia normally does. Probably too embarrassing. I suspect that this has been the lowest performance from Screen Australia support as a percentage of total box offices (FY13 circa $1.1b) in recent years, and is an indictment on the poor feature film picking skills of the organisation. It looks like less than 2.5%. Screen Australia was doing around an already pathetic 4% (before Red Dog’s outlier) in prior years. 3 only made mention this year – $14.5m for Sapphires, Kath and Kimberrella at $6.08m, and $4.08m from Mental.
They should all be sacked – and Screen Australia closed down.

Club QLD always and forever.

See you at the Brisbane Kickstarter night tonight Simon!

Logical inconsistency in your central ‘club’ metaphor?
“Screen Australia needs to stop acting like a club”
“When announcements come through of the latest beneficiaries of the millions of taxpayer dollars that go into feature and television production, the same names tend to pop up again and again.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but The Conversation has not received funding from SA previously, hence it can’t be one of the “same names to pop up again and again”.

Screen Australia is no good. Wrap it up and spend the money somewhere else.

I made a submission to the Review into the Australian Film Industry two years ago which is now online. It argued Screen Australia’s film financing model is an unholy and unsound restraint of trade, creativity and culture. Good luck getting politicians and bureaucrats to listen.

I think the bigger point here, as highlighted, is why are tax payers propping up an industry that cannot survive on its own? There are plenty of arts businesses that manage to turn a profit without government funding because if they aren’t good enough they’re out of a job. It’s that simple. Hopefully George Brandis or his staffers are reading this and asking some questions themselves.

Those of us who have shadowed the thresholds’ of a number of the screen industry funding agencies over the years could fill columns cms with war stories of struggle and bitter disappointment when it comes to landing that all important funding deal. As Peter Cox rightly says, all such agencies come with a perceived, rightly or wrongly, repeating history of favoured ones being award the prize.

But save your digital bandwidth for something worth fighting for folks. Yes, it’s a club, yes, they are all looking for the next big-thing, and it is the pre-discussions at in-parties that can make a difference. Tell me something I don’t know.

What is at issue here, and let us keep on topic, is the matter of transparency. Where in SA’s charter does it say that it has license to use a relatively small sum of public funds to support such a venture without giving due notice that it has done this? Judging by its Charter of Operations 2010/11 and being the only such document on its website http://bit.ly/1ajiMd2, the decision is at odds with almost all of its operating principles.

While SA might dress it up as “sponsorship” for a worthy need (that’s debateable though) the wriggle room is probably to be found in the sum of money involved – $50k. But if that was the case – sum + funding label, then why is that if I was to successfully apply for travel and accommodation funding to attend one of the five recognised documentary festivals/markets, do my details and the amount appear on its website and the annual report/budget papers – http://bit.ly/1hmaouF, and for an amount far less than $50k. If such sponsorship is available, then it should be made available to anyone eligible to apply. The only mention of sponsorship in last year’s annual report was for the sum of $6000 for the Game Connect Asia Pacific conference.

Hey Media Watch you goin’ to take this one on?

Once again Mumbrella you showcase the glimmer of hope that real transparency, real accountability can manifest in the interest of the industry, not just the select few pulling the strings!
The media industry (like many others) is working its way through a period of transition, where the monopoly media powers are loosing control and where the “clubs” are being called out for hop racy and “back door deals”.
Unlike 10-20 years ago, where this practise was expected and tolerated, I see hope in the facilitation of this kind of debate. The piece presented by Mumbrella, and then the comments section is strong evidence that change is coming.
Government agencies SHOULD be accountable in their decision making – we, as taxpayers, should be able to see what projects were accepted and contrast them against which were knocked back – with commentary as to how these decisions were made and who was qualified to make them.
Change will not occur if its not forced- thank you Mumbrella for starting an important conversation. The next step is collectively doing something about it

Have you seen the eligibility criteria to receive funding? It creates the club where the same people will get a bite of the cherry even if their work is forgettable, lamentable, dull, uninteresting, cringeworthy, overhyped… And forget about development funding for a script unless you have a producer on board to stick their oar in and is there a producer in this country who you would trust to do that based on their previous work? So the writing of a script cannot be done by a writer alone, they need someone to hold their hand and wreck their script. Will all this make better Australian films and TV? Nuh.

How many publicly funded films actually attract (payng) bums on seats?

Well written Tim.

For “Screen Australia” you can substitute the words “Australia Council; Children’s Television Foundation” or even “The Australian Sports Commission”
All these groups run under a similar philosophy where who who know is far more important than what you do, or intend to do.
From back in my days in Community Theatre it was well known that if you got “certain” people on your board then the Government grants would come rolling in.
Nothing’s changed, and it never will.

The Australian film industry is worth supporting and running these agencies is a difficult task. However that said transparency is all important. I think a review of Screen Australia is timely and its policy of industry “experts” evaluating projects has proved opaque and opens it to accusations of nepotism particularly in the light of an extremely poor year for Australian films. Screen Australia’s formidable PR team which screams when a film performs at the local box office has become strangely silent this year. And I’ve noticed that articles this week in The Conversation are bereft of any serious analysis and understanding of the industry. Journalism in this area has barely lifted itself above marketing and PR. I suppose you don’t get to share those canapés at flash functions if you get too critical.

Cross reference this article: https://mumbrella.com.au/go-creative-industries-186748

Maybe government agencies aren’t the way to go at all…

Well written Tim, and so sadly true… as a fledgling in the industry I’m looking for a screen industry grant to cover teeth whitening, a tad of botox and one way flights for all Australian film folk possessing ‘an authentic voice’ to LA (or Paris)… We may loose authenticity through bleaching, but at least stand a chance at feeding ourselves.

I think The Conversation is terrific, but Screen Australia has defunded really important publications such as METRO and SENSES OF CINEMA–both of which have substantial content about Australian film and television.

I agree that the lack of transparency at funding agencies is a significant issue. The reason the industry doesn’t complain about it more is that they cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

However, I don’t share the author’s ambivalence, the Australian industry is fragile and does need government support. Without it we would not have our stories on screen at all, e.g. it is much cheaper to buy content in for TV and we could not be able to compete.

Of course I have to be anonymous. And, of course there is a conflict of interest with Scroz ‘sponsoring’ The Conversation. Blind man Freddie could see that.

More concerning is the increasingly closed doors of Scroz to only the small band of producers who they dish out the majority of funds to. If you look at the actual track record of say Magowan Films and the subsidy that company has received – or even the brilliant Robert Connolly – it’s multiple millions out the door for a very very small, let’s say it – miniscule return. But that ratio is NEVER discussed. It should be published along with everything else. What returns have the tax payers seen!!!

Surely there must be a way (similar to Canada where they have a model around a ‘performance envelope’) where commercial success, rather than a single screening of a film in a festival and no sales subsequently, can be rewarded.

And, at what point does Scroz stop colluding with the distributors to control what gets made through the ridiculous triggering mechanisms of the Offset.

Surely the offset must recognize the audience now watches films in very different ways. If it’s about Australian stories finding the largest audience then VOD/pay tv etc must factor in as an acceptable form of distribution in the 21st century.

I’m sure when Mr Mason takes charge there will be a review of all policy and practice – I for one, cannot wait for it to change.

I was forced from the industry due to my comment to the Board and CEO that Screen Australia was simply functioning as a Centrelink for producers…… the reaction was, quoting Jack Nicholson: “You can’t handle the truth.” Truth is that commercialism drives creativity, but commercialism is challenging. Currently creativity has been dammed and diverted into complying with funding guidelines rather than content …… frustrataing huh?

Slightly off topic but it is interesting that one of our most creative exports – live comedy receives very little support from government. A live tour from a successful Australian stand-up often generates more sales than many Australian films. Every year many Australian acts get great reviews in Edinburgh and Montreal. Now obviously these people don’t need a lot of support as they are actually successful but the young stand-ups could do with a little bit of cash every now and then. At present the Moosehead awards, a private charity and the indirect money that goes to festivals is the only support. Stand-up is one of our cheapest, most popular art forms but for many years performers pay to work. The Australian Council should throw a couple of hundred grand annually at subsidising venue hire in major festivals or a few grants.

Screen Australia’s press releases appear to be far better crafted than their funding effectiveness. Despite the messages of great success emanating from the spin doctors at the conclusion of Ruth Harley’s single term tenure, the metrics tell a vastly different story. Screen Australia receives direct government funding of around $100m per year, if we assume producer offset funding provides an equivalent amount, then the agency has been provided with a war chest of $1billion over its 5 year existence. What we have received for $1 billion is; Sapphires, the quintessentially “Australian” Gatsby, some television and documentaries, an “Enterprise” programme and two changes of premises. If a screen production fund had been set up 5 years ago and capitalised with a billion dollars and then proceeded to deliver what Screen Australia has I dare say it would have been wound up ….. food for thought.

You people stop sooking. Screen Australia is an EQUITY INVESTOR and films like Gatsby took millions world wide, Screen Aus see a return on their equity investment which generates further finance to put back in to the industry keeping hundreds of talented and qualified people employed. Red Dog, The Sapphires, they all saw a return and generated hundreds of thousands to put back into other projects. If your film doesn’t have broadcaster interest or a distributor, it’s probably shit. Now stop crying go learn how to write better and you’ll get your project up next time, or get your ass on a plane and go to America and pitch it to someone with private money and stop bitching about the soft money system, or better yet, disappear and go work in a supermarket.

True theatre producers, of which film makers are a vital part, should turn away from funding. There is a core of “play it safe” people who want everything to fall into their laps and everything to be funded and approved by someone else, so that when it all fails there are others to blame, there is money to bank and there is an “Oh well” party somewhere down the line.

Have the courage to form a co-operative and actually hone a project from the ground up with your own time, your own skills, your own sweat and your own (combined) money. It is amazing how much more there is to find within your talents when your arse is on the line for real, when the outcome is what you and the team make it rather than that god awful platitude hashed out in meetings, printed out for all to lose the copy, and entitled “projected positive outcomes”

Stop playing mini executive, abandon mini Hollywood games and embrace S.M.A.F! ……Start Making Australian Films.

A good article, Tim, and an interesting lot of comments.

However, it seems to me that we have all being making these observations and complaints for some time now and that with a new Chief Executive starting work this month we should be thinking and talking in terms of constructive suggestions and possible solutions to present to him.

My own thoughts, vis a vis Screen Australia and script development, can be found in three blog entries for anyone interested, starting here:

http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....ughts.html

Michelle wonderful sentiments however let’s look at the numbers. Firstly, offset financed projects don’t return anything to the Agency, so Gatsby’s “millions” don’t come back.
If we look at the financials of a project like Red Dog, and using IMDB numbers as a proxy for our example at a box office of $21.3m and a budget of $8.5m. If we assume film hire back to the project at 35% this means of the $21.3m, $7.5m comes back to the film. If we assume $2m P&A and 20% distributor fee then net back to the film is $4m. If there was a DG that would be paid first before equity. Even assuming no DG the film is still in the negative by $4.5m. A big hill to climb with OS box office which is traditionally low and ancillaries.

Good article.
Michelle, which supermarket do you work at?
You seem to have waayyy too much class to be in ‘the industry’, so I assume you’re improving society one day at a time down at Cheap As Chips?
BTW, ‘grammar’ isn’t just a dumb thing to call your grandmother – but you’d better bloody use it if you’re calling out others for bad writing! I look forward to your next masterpiece.

One problem with ‘The Conversation’, funded by Screen Australia to the tune of $50,000, is that if you are a practicing filmmaker you can’t write for it.

I approached The Conversation with an offer to write an article.

The Conversation:

“The Conversation only publishes articles written by academics with current teaching or research affiliations with universities. Before we go any further I thought I’d check to see whether you are attached to a university?”

James:

“No, not attached to a university. Am a BA with honours, finished half a masters degree, did post graduate work at New York University, graduated from the Australian Film and TV School but, no, do not work in a university. I have been a practicing filmmaker for 42 years – which equips me to know a little about filmmaking. Indeed a bit more than an academic, I would have thought.”

The Conversation

“You’ve clearly got a lot of expert knowledge about film and I agree it’s a shame we can’t make space for it on the website – but as a university funded website, it’s our policy only to publish academics.”

James:

“I must say I find this hard to believe. With my university and film school qualifications I am one of the most academically qualified filmmakers in the country. I have made three feature films, produced, directed and shot dozens of hours of documentary and written a dozen feature film scripts but am not qualified to write about film! However, if I had never made a film, had no experience, but was teaching at a university I would, presumably, be qualified to write about film. Is this correct?

This is where the conversation ended.

Australia’s peak film funding body is part funding a website that, by definition, cannot carry articles written by practicing filmmakers – unless, of course, the filmmaker also happens to work at a university.

Georgie McClean, Screen Australia’s manager of strategy, research and communications:

“Screen Australia has sponsored The Conversation’s new arts, culture and creative industries section (with $50K) as a platform for new research and public debate on the Australian screen sector. Screen Australia’s remit includes support for Australian screen culture, in which discussion, debate and research play important roles.”

In the ‘arts, culture and creative industries section” in which we filmmakers work (producers, directors, screenwriters etc) can there be genuine ‘discussion, debate’ if the only people able to generate discussion and debates are academics who are not practicing filmmakers? Would Screen Australia’s $50,000 be better spent on a website on which the thoughts of practicing filmmakers were also welcome?

Michelle,
What language is that? I’m Australian and I use the English language. What does ‘ Now stop crying go learn how to write better…’ mean? Then there’s ‘…get your ass on a plane …’ What on earth has a donkey to do with it? Finally, ‘…go work in a supermarket.’ ? Do you mean ‘…go AND work in a supermarket’ ? Whatever happened to that magical Australian conjunction ‘and’ ?

Maybe that’s where I’ve been going wrong.

More on the same subject for anyone interested:

http://jamesricketson.blogspot.....ip-of.html

Perhaps this is a storm in a teacup. I happen to think not. Surely the decision to sponsor ‘The Conversation’ to the tune of $50,000 should have been discussed by the Board beforehand.

I offered this piece to ‘The Conversation’ to publish. My offer was declined.

I haven’t had time to read all the above responses but I can completely understand where the article writer is coming from. As someone who was with one of the pre-merger organisations (AFC) and had one year with SA, I find it interesting (to say the least) that this issue has arisen as well as the comments about SA seeminly becoming more bureaucratic. and a club.

The reason I say this was that the management of the new entity was hell-bent on cutting down what they perceived as bureaucracy and did so in a pretty bloody-midned fashion.

At the AFC I worked in the division that ran a funding program for industry support activities such as industry magazines. The program was mostly competitive and provided funding to both Inside Film (If) and Encore (the exception to competetive being major organisations such as the established film festivals and organisations such as SPAA – which still had to submit reporting against policy objectives and in the event that such an organisation was so porrly managed or ptaronised it could have its funding cut altogther).

In their ‘wisdom” the funding program was split up to more “relevant” sections of thenew organisation ….. and now we see, in their efforts to cut red-tape and bireaucracy they have now found themsleves the subject of controversy by allocatiing $50k to one organisation without opening up the monies to the sort of competeition that a funding program could achieve.

Next time any of you Coalition voters out there start complaining about red-tape and bureacracy rememberto keep this to keep this particular matter in mind! Sure some government programs can be designed to run a lot better (fair outcomes, efficientcy and so on) but cutting red-tape for the sake of it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to get better outcomes!!