state of the cultural nation
2 Jan 2009
Dropping Box Office Bombs
The recent slew of disastrously unprofitable Australian films suggests a disconnect with audiences. And Screen Australia's new film funding guidelines aren't going to improve matters, writes Robert Miller
Local audiences for Australian films continue to dwindle as filmmakers churn out worthy, dull films. The worsening situation means that producers who want to find private investment for films actually aimed at making a profit — yeah, I know, a crazy idea! — face an uphill battle against the common conception (and supporting facts) that Aussie films are profitless and devoid of any real audience beyond the filmmakers and their friends and a small crowd of genre-hating-posers.I'm well aware that national funding body Screen Australia, formerly the austere sounding Australian Film Commission, and its state equivalents don't need to fund movies aimed at making a profit. After all it's just taxpayer money they're spending. But does anyone else think that this is having a detrimental effect on our cinema? Even other heavily protected industries, such as the car industry, have a profit-driven system.
If we want to get all post-Keynesian about it, surely we'd realise that even the artiest film is at its base a commodity in the circulation of capital. Sure, the target audiences and reasons for making arty films are important (and often in the Australian industry, the problem), but for the most part we're not talking about Warhols' Blowjob. Rather, we're talking about overwrought dramas with no real dramatic arc about westies like Ten Empty or Bitter & Twisted. Depictions of angst don't necessarily equal drama or entertainment. Worse, the production quality often feels sub par — telemovie style — something that Ten Empty seemed to wear with pride.
There's been a lot of talk within the industry both about the appointment of New Zealander Ruth Harley as the new Screen Australia CEO and about the establishment of new film funding guidelines. These decisions will define an industry already on the precipice over the next few years.
Ruth Harley did an interview with Encore magazine, a self congratulatory, back-slapping industry mag. Here are a few key quotes: "The immediacy of television is something that appeals to me. I like the crispness, energy and vitality of it." Translation: she wants to make movies more like TV? On "crisp" (I think she means video, HD, or HDV) formats. Our TV is worse than our movies! Imagine hitting the multiplex and seeing trailers for Neighbours: The Movie. Or Rove: In IMAX. Euthanise me, please! Underbelly was a breakout hit for Channel Nine and it proves my point about connecting with audiences — it cannily targeted a market and provided mostly solid entertainment. At the AFI awards, it was lauded as if this was some sort of magical breakthrough.
Here's another Harley classic, "Film can't have the same neat structure as television, but you'd be hoping to transfer more of that (television) across to film." It gets better, "I don't have any specific idea about how to go about producing films with greater audience appeal." Uh? What? How'd she get the job?
With all the worrying about the state of the industry you'd hope that Screen Australia would come up with a plan of attack to revitalise it. To shake the tree, ruffle feathers, initiate change.
And they have.
Except they've come up with a plan that's so backwards it's staggering. Rather than fostering new talent, they've entrenched the "experienced" filmmakers who got us into this mess and called it a solution. They've set the bar for funding eligibility so high that it's next to impossible for anyone but the most "experienced" producers, directors and writers to get access to money.
For instance, the Australian Writers Guild (AWG) estimates that there are maybe five to 10 screenwriters in Australia who'd actually qualify for funding under the new guidelines - contra Screen Australia's assertion that there are in excess of 70. It smacks of deep-seated, cancerous cronyism. Nepotism on steroids. Doesn't experience usually carry some implication of success? Not in the Australian film industry. In any other business if you'd just lost millions of dollars you'd get the sack. In the Australian film industry, they reward it by deeming you "experienced" and giving you the opportunity to lose more taxpayers' money. Furthermore, funding bodies will help keep the younger, hungrier, more innovative competition out of the way. Historically, changes in the landscape of film have come from younger filmmakers, not those deeply entrenched within the machine.
According to the AWG, under the proposed restrictions, writer applicants with the following projects would have been turned away without an "experienced" producer: start with Strictly Ballroom, Romper Stomper, Newsfront, Proof, and The Castle, keep going through Wolf Creek, Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, and Muriel's Wedding and don't stop just because you've left Looking for Alibrandi, Lantana, and Look Both Ways behind. These are some of our most iconic films and have achieved spectacular results, here and abroad. Further, the directors and producers on almost all of these films would have failed to pass the proposed eligibility criteria.
Worse, their decision flows down, affecting not just producers, writers and directors but all crew. The people at the top generally use the same key creatives (cinematographers, production designers, editors) who in turn use the technicians (gaffers, grips, standby props, assistants, etc) they've always worked with. How can anyone new break into the industry?
Until recently, Screen Australia also planned to eliminate short film funding and thereby close another means for up-and-coming filmmakers to hone and showcase their skills.
Screen Australia insists that with the emergence of digital technology and editing software like Final Cut Pro, films can be made on a low budget that are internationally competitive, which is true to a point. But if you want to be internationally competitive you need good ideas and good production values, not a slew of tiny, earnest kitchen table dramas about two people in a room shot on low-end video. None of the Australian short films selected for the Sundance Film Festival this year (Lessons from the Night, Netherland Dwarf, Miracle Fish and Jerrycan) were shot on your family video handycam.
And finally, once filmmakers have had the opportunity to make a government subsidised feature film and get some runs on the board, shouldn't they be in a better position to go out and find private financing for the next one rather than using up more government funding? I know it would be difficult, because in all likelihood the film they just made was seen by less than half a dozen punters, but that's the problem with this system — it's inefficient. It fosters lazy filmmakers who need to return to the teat to suckle the sweet milk of Screen Australia.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Perhaps a three strikes policy make three films if none make a profit no more tax payers money.
Public Funds should not be spent on films, any films, other than in the most compelling circumstances. Perhaps a tax break should be made available if a certain film achieves a certain (financial) result. An open chequebook policy has failed.
Films are a profit driven business by definition. 9 out of 10 films sponsored by taxpayers’ money fail miserably. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet Governments insist and always want to be seen as doing something for ‘the arts’.
While public funds may have good intentions, the reality is that a chosen few (generally self-appointed or through back slapping) get the bulk of the money and produce very little to justify it.
What absolute guff!!
"But does anyone else think that this is having a detrimental effect on our cinema? Even other heavily protected industries, such as the car industry, have a profit-driven system. "
It may well be a bit removed from the Gough years but where is the problem in sponsoring quality and independant cultural commentary via film? This article is suggesting the industry should turn to the Hollywood box office manual, and turn away content that wont have people rushing for the popcorn and coke.
Get a grip. What you are suggesting is ludicrous and if adopted would result in a explosion of cheap good for nothing crap…because it followed the profit formula of sex, special effects, and some smears of blood.
What may need review is the ongoing process of review to ensure that sponsoring bodies such as Screen Australia, continue to produce high quality and low profit films - as they have done so well and should be worn as a badge of honour and success.
rosettamoon,
It’s a little rich to claim that all Robert wants is for Aussies to churn out rubbishy big-budget movies. Really…I don’t think that’s the plan.
Who hasn’t chatted with a film-snob at a party that whip out an elitest blurb like yours — it’s a real worry. You’d hope that those who made culturally significant films would want a healthy, broad audience to watch them?
I guess you could say that some Aussies are too hooked on trash to catch on. However, there’s a healthy market for non-Aussie indie movies here…which would imply that the Aussie indie flicks aren’t really making the cut.
You’re welcome to be hostile to Hollywood flicks until the cows come home, but please don’t pretend that Aussie flicks are necessarily better and that those who disagree are endorsing the production of ‘Police Acadamy X’, ‘Predator vs Alien vs The Joker’ or ‘Weekend at Bernies, the In-Laws’.
More to the point, the worrying thing is how those writers/directors/crew who aren’t estabilished (who I guess you’d call ‘Independent’) may have the door closed on them.
Unfortunatley I, and others I know, are seriously considering migrating overseas to get opportunities to make the films we want to make without having to sell our bodies (and trust me, that’ll yield less than any Aussie movie out these!).
Anyhow, we shouldn’t be polarising this debate into a choice between movies starring Hugo or Noni againt those billing Dolf and that guy from Duece Biggalo. It would be great if there was a little more balance and accceptance of the concept that ‘profit is not evil’.
Rosettamoons attitude resonates well with the problems of Australian films. "high quality and low profit films…. as a badge of honour". Like that is enough to maintain adequate employment opportunities for people working in the industry and/or be of any interest to the majority of the local audience? The film bodies in Australia are an elitist clique of ex-private school networks. Sheltered workshop of self-congratulation. These articles by Robert Miller spell out clearer than ever the pathetic state of the industry. You can’t expect to like everything that is produced but repetitive failure should not be accepted or maintained.
I think "sex, special effects, and some smears of blood" are precisely what is needed.
Yes, we must bow to the global dribbel of mass produced candy floss entertainment, and of course it should be focused on jobs and the bottom line - anything less would be a scandal - free trade agreement all way with this industry and if we cant compete or turn a profit, we cab always outsource resources and talent to reduce overheads and splice in the aussie accents and gum trees later to make sure we comply with labeling content rules.
I think one missing point is that the ‘profit line’, ‘bottom line’ or ‘box office takings’ are not the sum total benefits of the immediate or greater effect.
This formula has worked although appearing both ridiculous and fabulous. Tax generosity with a specific aim.
In the sense a lot of people regard Australian Film, it has worked. It has worked for decades in the consistent production of quality films, some big hits, other waiting to be discovered or serving some random and obscure cultural niche.
I dont mind a government cash splash supporting positive social and economic outcomes - better than that money spent on wars.
Yes, its all about balance but when we hear the horror budget news and grim headlines dont forget the government and corporations have buckets of money (or can make it) , so the least we can do is congratulate them when they send it to the right places and then ask them for more.
"Get a grip. What you are suggesting is ludicrous and if adopted would result in a explosion of cheap good for nothing crap…because it followed the profit formula of sex, special effects, and some smears of blood."
Yours is a tired argument.
The term genre doesn’t necessarily mean exploitative guns n’ tits. The Godfather, widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever, is a genre movie. Takeshi Kitano makes genre movies, so does Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almovador and many others.
I think that the writer of this article is simply saying that our films should be made with a better understanding of what an audience wants, here and abroad. At the moment we’re not making entertainment and we’re not competing (by and large) on an international art house level, either. There are no Australian directors who have anything on the talent or ability to push the boundaries and expectations of cinema as Kitano, Gasper Noe, Michael Hanneke, Pedro Almovador, Aronofsky, Wong Kar-Wai, John Cameron Mitchell, Wes Anderson, Lars Von Trier, Michael Winterbottom or David Lynch.
That nobody is seeing our films should be a clear enough indicator that what we’re making isn’t connecting. The above poster ROSETTAMOON is falling on the same old argument of blaming audiences and not the films for their failure, which is ridiculous.
Barista has an exhaustive article on the formation of Screen Australia and the current state of the industry here.
Current Korean output is a lovely blend of profitable, thoughtful entertainment. Examples: The Host, Memories of Murder, Take Care of my Cat. The deeply Buddhist Spring, Summer… is not a good model; singular works of genius never are.
It’s a global market, people. We were all pissing our pants with joy when our films were doing well overseas, then we got all excited about the way our actors, directors and others were getting jobs in Hollywood.
Now it becomes apparent that the result of all this global development is an inability to produce intimately local, genuinely quirky stories. The self same stories that got us the attention in the first place.
I think you are wrong MF, singular works of genuis are the only game in town. The more we try to direct our films to the global market the more we will (over) produce vast sprawling peices of crap like ‘Australia’.
People should be supported to make the films they want to make. Some will be financially successful and others won’t but at least we don’t have to be embarrassed by them.
Is ‘Australia’ an American film? Wasn’t it produced with American money (20th Century FOX), with a large tax incentive from the government?
Dr Dog wrote: "Now it becomes apparent that the result of all this global development is an inability to produce intimately local, genuinely quirky stories. The self same stories that got us the attention in the first place."
Uh, maybe the stories that got us the attention in the first place were movies like Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, The Man From Snowy River and Gallipoli.
And what do they have in common? They’re GOOD genre movies. They’re all "commercial" and directed at an international market and they’re all uniquely Australian. You don’t have to be insular to have credibility.
We SHOULD direct our films at a global market, maybe we’d make some classics, like the above, again.
My views on arts funding are much like my views on sports funding.
No issue with taxpayer funds supporting local/community arts/sports but see no reason whatsoever that someone on an average wage should subsidise a film in order to allow some actor to work.
Nor should taxpayer funds subsidise the AIS and athletes who go on to earn a personal fortune.
Fund local arts groups and local sports groups and let the professionals do what everyone else has to - follow the demands of the market.
Health, education & housing are fundamentals the government needs to focus on, assisting a select group of wankers to keep on wanking is not
"Yes, its all about balance but when we hear the horror budget news and grim headlines dont forget the government and corporations have buckets of money (or can make it) , so the least we can do is congratulate them when they send it to the right places and then ask them for more."
the point you keep missing though is that CLEARLY a large number of people do NOT think that throwing cash at shithouse aussie films is something to be congratulated.
you might not have noticed this but when govts ‘just make more’ money it hasn’t actually been conjured out of thin air. It is diverted from other things like education, health etc etc
I think, Monkey, that it is demonstrably difficult (not impossible but close) to predict what the global market will latch on to. Whenever I see a film that clearly has been directed for a global market there is always visible compromise.
The films you mention were partly successful because they could only have been made in Australia, by Australians. I guess I am railing against the inevitable genericism of globally directed and produced movies. By this I don’t mean that it all has to be strine and shearers but surely we must provide genuine points of cultural difference to sell our stuff overseas, difference being the essence of marketing as all marketers and Marxists will tell you.
They still haven’t worked this out in Hollywood, where hundreds of shit films get made because some producer has conceived a ‘sure fire’ formula for successful films. Observe for example some of the foul sequels to rise from that cesspool of human creativity over the last 10 years.
It would be nice to think that we could make successful movies that we could also be proud of. These movies won’t be made by established directors, so in relation to funding I say give the lot to unknowns, they are sure to provide more bang for our buck than the current crop, who have already told their best stories.
DR Dog:
Lantana wasn’t s singular work of genius - it had a fairly hackneyed plot, But it made a profit. And all we are discussing here is an ozindustry that can make a profit.
Pollack (Sketches of Frank Gehry)) and Kauismaki shoot on HD video and cut costs that way. It’s accepted practice now. We should be looking at shooting on HD and releasing on DVD as training tools.
Remember how British screenwriters like Hanif Kureishi and Harold Pinter we trained by writing for BBC radio? How film-makers like Ken Russell and Ken Loach originally worked for BBCTV?
As someone remarked earlier, the programme for indigenous film-makers is very successful. It, too, involves training through steps, like the British model.
Dr Dog wrote: "These movies won’t be made by established directors, so in relation to funding I say give the lot to unknowns, they are sure to provide more bang for our buck than the current crop, who have already told their best stories."
I agree.
Unfortunately, the new funding structure set up by Screen Australia as the above article points out is geared toward keeping out new talent and entrenching the established filmmakers, many of whom are (in my opinion) responsible for the dire state we’re in.
However, what you’re saying is going to result in filmmakers making more COMMERCIAL movies. If they know they’re going to have to go it on their own after a government funded film it’s likely they’re going to make something that will help get another (privately funded) movie up. Private investment is interested in profit. Profit relies on an audience.
Of course there will no doubt be stinkers, cookie cutter crap and so on, but I think it’s a bold idea. I still think Australians will make ‘Australian films’, too. Just ones people want to see.
All the best film movements, French new wave for instance, came from young filmmakers with a new vision. Not old farts.
They became old farts eventually though.
Thats right, the old farts are the ones that should be able to secure private funding. If they can’t then who? The government can’t be risk averse and develop the industry at the same time.
MF, is that true about Lantana? It made a profit? Jesus, I saw it and agree with you that it most cetrtainly wasn’t a work of singular or even group genius.
I do like what you have to say about development, MF. In some ways the short film scene is providing some of the training ground. Television seems uninterested in anything but NCIS CSI SVU Miami type shit.
Superb article.
Every industry needs profitable cinema to survive. That doesn’t mean making crap as some here have claimed.
American cinema produces both action and genre cinema which is the life blood of the industry, as well as some of, if not the best independent films in the world- Which manages to make a profit.
To those that have said Screen Australia should stick to their current policy of producing ‘quality’ - I would say that while I love independent artistic cinema, with the exception of Noise and some other phenomenal films, Australian artistic films return far too little for far too much money. American independent film makers manage to make far better films for less, and they manage to address far more meaningful and original themes.
Also, will somebody respond to the astounding new criteria for funding? which doesn’t encourage creativity and new ideas but strangles it by giving funding to a select few who make a living on making a loss.
For those that derride the idea of making ‘genre films’ and ‘crap’ full of special effects that will not lead to the growth of the industry - I would ask them to look at the first films of Scorsese, Tarantino and even Spielberg. Genre films which were done cheap, which pulled audiences with inventiveness, tension and excitement while sending messages and contributing (even had their directors gone on to do nothing more) to the film culture.
Genre films are not opposed to ‘art’, they are just as worthy of funding.
Right after I finished my degree I started calling up friends of friends of friends, producers, directors, who ever I could get my hands on, to find out about how on earth I was going to go about getting a job in the Australian film industry. One guy I called asked me where I saw myself in five years. I said that I wanted to grow my skills and experience in the hopes of one day being able to produce and direct my own low budget, high quality films. It was a stupid thing to say, and a little bit arrogant and naive, but this guy just went off at me. He told me I was selfish and that if I was just going to go off to do my own thing and not give something back to the industry after professionals such as himself had put so much time and effort into training me, then why should they bother? He has a point, so long as you define ‘giving something back to the industry’ as faithfully serving your superiors for the rest of your working life.
I wasn’t trying to be selfish. In my young, silly head I figured that making my own films was the same as serving the industry, by employing and training new people thereby expanding the industry and increasing the diversity within it. After talking to that guy, I decided I was never going to make it in Australian film.