state of the cultural nation
5 Jan 2009
Coming Soon To A Broadsheet Near You
In propagating misconceptions about the Australian film industry, media pundits are sabotaging the national conversation about screen culture, argues Dan Edwards
When scriptwriter Jimmy the Exploder directed a very public "F*ck you" towards Jim Schembri, film critic at The Age at the Australian Film Institute Awards in early December, he reportedly inspired a standing ovation from the industry crowd. By contrast, Schembri's blog on The Age website was overwhelmed with comments supporting his criticisms of the industry.The incident falls into yet another cycle of hand-wringing over the state of Australian film, underpinned by an astounding level of public ignorance about the workings of the industry, and ill-informed, repetitive commentary from the mainstream media. From within the industry itself there is an unwillingness — or inability — to articulate a meaningful response to criticisms or the sector's problems. The net result is an almost total absence of intelligent debate about our local screen culture.
In terms of public perception, reader comments posted on Schembri's blog indicate that the belief our cultural bodies comprise "a bunch of closeted elitists" is alive and well. Isn't it time we moved past this ridiculous, ill-defined notion? Who exactly belongs to this "elite"? I worked at the Australian Film Commission for several years (in the Publications Unit, so I was not involved in funding decisions), and my experiences there confirmed some of my suspicions about the flawed nature of our film funding. However, the idea that our funding bodies are staffed by a clique living in some kind of isolation zone, deliberately conspiring to fund movies they fervently hope no-one will see, is ridiculous. Understanding the problems of our industry within a framework of "us" (good, simple, ordinary Australians) versus "them" (intellectual, art-loving bureaucrats alien to their compatriots) isn't just unhelpful - it's stupid.
The degree of public ignorance regarding the industry is hardly surprising given the quality of the commentary offered by the Australian media. While thoughtful pieces occasionally appear, such as this feature by Michael Bodey in The Australian in early November, most "analysis" is of the kind offered by Deb Verhoeven in this article published in The Age back in 2005. Verhoeven makes the obvious point that Australians aren't buying tickets to see local films because they don't like them. She throws in some statistics about dwindling audiences, notes the funding bodies are in denial about the problem, and sums up by saying if things don't get better we'll never have a great national cinema. Hardly insightful stuff.
I cite this example from nearly four years ago to illustrate the repetitive nature of writings on the subject. Schembri wrote a piece entitled "At Death's Door — an industry lost in the dark" making almost exactly the same points earlier this month.
I am not suggesting that Australian funding bodies should not be criticised, or that our screen sector doesn't have serious problems. But commentary on the situation is meaningless and counterproductive if it's not informed by some real understanding of the industry, or some useful suggestions to move the debate along.
To give an example of the counterproductive nature of the present discussion, among the comments following Schembri's blog about the AFI Awards was a suggestion from a reader calling him or her self "El Rey" that read, "Australia has no hope of creating a meaningful film industry based on government funding. The closeted elitists involved in the approval process are fully aware what they're doing... Leave them to it, and let's start a fantastic, privately funded industry." Schembri responded to many posts on the thread, but not this one. Above this post, however, he formulated his own brilliant solution for the industry's woes: "Stop granting money. Start loaning it. That way filmmakers go in knowing that the best way to return the money is to design their film for an audience."
The idea that Australia can support a commercially viable, profitable film industry is pure, unadulterated fantasy. If there was money to be made making movies, Australian businesses would be doing it. Apart from those in the US and India, no national film industry on the planet could survive without subsidies. Even Hollywood receives considerable assistance from the US Government. Washington often insists, for example, that screening quotas for local films be eliminated as one of the conditions of free trade agreements, as South Korea found in 2006.
Furthermore, like all industries Hollywood produces far more flops than hits, but it survives partly through sheer weight of numbers, and partly because it doesn't rely on box office takings. Since the 1970s, the bulk of Hollywood's profits have come from videos and DVDs, merchandise and other film-related products. The idea that Australia might compete in the same ballpark is delusional. Even during the local industry's heyday of the 1980s, production was fuelled by massive subsidies through the 10BA tax rebate mechanism. Film production is simply too expensive and Australia too small to make this activity profitable. If we want a screen sector, the state has to play some kind of role. The alternative is to simply let the sector die.
Schembri presumably knows this — and if he doesn't why is he a film critic for one of our major broadsheets? He could enhance public understanding and further the debate by pointing out some of these facts. Instead, he encourages public misconceptions and makes facile suggestions about loaning money he knows full well could almost never be paid back.
In addition to promoting completely unrealistic visions about what is possible in the Australian context, mainstream media commentary invariably focuses solely on feature films. Our documentary sector, which has arguably produced the most notable work of recent times, rarely rates a mention.
The Indigenous sector similarly receives scant attention outside flourishes of interest around large public events like the annual Message Sticks Film Festival. Yet the story of Australian Indigenous film is one of the industry's few unqualified contemporary successes. Anyone who has tried to get a seat in the massively oversubscribed Message Sticks screenings at the Sydney Opera House knows that there is a sizeable and passionate audience for these films. The achievements of this sector are significant because Indigenous film has been developed under a funding model quite different to the one covering the rest of the industry.
Under the guidance of the Indigenous Branch of the Australian Film Commission (incorporated into Screen Australia as of July this year), the careers of Aboriginal filmmakers have been nurtured through a carefully planned series of workshops, funding programs and initiatives spanning many years. This is quite different to the project-by-project funding regime under which other filmmakers work.
Aboriginal filmmakers have also been encouraged to work across a range of forms, from features and documentaries to cross-platform projects. Crucially, all of this activity has been underpinned by a vibrant Indigenous television sector in the Top End, where filmmakers like Warwick Thornton, Wayne Blair, Steven McGregor and Beck Cole cut their teeth. Obviously this model has been tailored to suit the needs of a particular group within Australian society, but its success is never discussed or analysed for possible broader lessons.
While many Indigenous filmmakers are working fairly constantly, other Australian film personnel spend more time searching for employment than making movies. According to statistics published by the AFC, in the past 30 years 65.9 per cent of our feature film directors only made one movie. A scant 20.2 per cent made three or more. The figures are even more dismal for producers.
How many of the world's great directors produced a masterpiece with their first feature? Orson Welles' Citizen Kane or Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs represent exceptions rather than the rule. Most directorial talents, from George Lucas to Antonioni, made many films before producing the work for which they are remembered. Yet the limited amount Australia invests in its system of project-by-project direct funding encourages an endless stream of first-time directors. Most are too wearied by the process to ever attempt a second feature. How is Australia supposed to forge an artistically vigorous cinema, let alone a "commercial" industry, when the vast majority of our filmmakers only get one shot at making a film? This obvious and vital question is rarely asked by the media, who too often indulge in offering opinions on the kinds of films we "should" be making. If critics like Schembri are so certain about what makes a hit movie, why don't they make one and retire on the profits?
Australia has enjoyed one prolonged period of rolling production, and that was in the 1980s. At the height of the 10BA tax rebate system that underwrote the era's production boom, investors could write off capital expenditure on film production at a rate of 150 per cent. The industry was consequently flooded with privately sourced funds and some of our most popular films were produced, including Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, The Man From Snowy River and Gallipoli. There was also a lot of dross produced, as there is in every active industry. The point is that filmmakers of all kinds had the opportunity to work and hone their craft. The funding bodies continued to play an important role, but they were not the sole arbitrators of what features were made. The mix of direct funding and 10BA subsidies allowed big-budget genre cinema, mainstream television dramas, and genuine experimentation to co-exist in a vibrant, broad and highly active production sector.
The new production tax offset currently being implemented by Screen Australia is potentially a move in the right direction, designed to attract private funds back into the sector and open up opportunities for a broader range of productions. It is up to the funding bodies to articulate what role they will play if this occurs, and to encourage real innovation — as opposed to middle-of-the-road products that interest neither mainstream audiences nor hardened cinephiles — alongside features aimed at a broad audience.
If the Australian media can bring themselves to inform the Australian public of the facts, as well as facilitate some useful debate rather than wheeling out the same old tired opinion pieces, it's just possible Australian cinema might start moving forward.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Dan, you can shoot the messenger or you can pay attention to the barbarians at the gates. And are you really suggesting that Jim Schembri’s articles are not informed by a thorough understanding of the industry? He is one of the most prolific film critics in the country, and the figures he cites in his article are the AFC/Screen Australia’s own.
You criticise Schembri’s suggestion - a small comment made, no doubt quickly, in an article that had literally hundreds of responses - that loans could be tried instead of grants. Yet your treatment of his suggestion is nearly as cursory as his comment. Is loaning money really "a facile suggestion" which would result in funds "almost never be[ing] paid back"? We don’t know, because you don’t bother to seriously explore the suggestion.
Surely this is contingent on the film projects being funded. Most films lose money, after all, but some make lots of money, and despite the risk and uncertainty involved, commercial interests are still funding film and TV in this country. Tax deductible production offsets, for example, are economically speaking very similar to loans, in that they are only paid to producers who make a profit.
If we want to fund film, we need stronger arguments than simply harking back to the glory days of the 10BA offset - which was abandoned by the Hawke government after being systematically rorted.
And then there’s this priceless pearl of wisdom from your article:
Oh really? Who says? What evidence can you advance for this assertion? The Australian games industry receives almost no funding, yet turns over a handy sum and includes many profitable firms. Likewise many other segments of the Australian cultural industries make money with little or no state support - like music festivals, broadcast TV and big-ticket musicals.
Dan, you should presumably know this — and if you don’t, why are you attacking the Australian media for wheeling out the same tired old opinions?
"If we want a screen sector, the state has to play some kind of role. The alternative is to simply let the sector die."
and the problem with that for working Australians would be what?
Hi Ben and MissnOmar,
To address your questions one at a time:
First MissnOmar’s comment "and the problem with that for working Australians would be what?"
Well, I’m a working a Australian and I would have a problem with Australia’s screen industry dying. And I don’t work in the industry. But perhaps for most people it wouldn’t be a problem. My article offers no opinion one way or the other on this point. I was simply saying ‘if’ we want a screen industry the state needs to play a role. if we don’t want a screen presence, I for one would find that very sad, but so be it.
And Ben’s points:
I’ll start with your asking for evidence that, "If we want a screen sector, the state has to play some kind of role. The alternative is to simply let the sector die."
If you read on the evidence is in my article:
"If there was money to be made making movies, Australian businesses would be doing it. Apart from those in the US and India, no national film industry on the planet could survive without subsidies."
If you want to present me with evidence that their are other profitable industries out there with no state involvement, I’d love to see it and be proved wrong. Support takes many forms, from direct funding in France to screen quotas and infrastructure investment in festivals and cinemas in South Korea. As noted in the article, even Hollywood receives considerable support from the US govt, who aggressively strive to open overseas film markets to the overwhelming number of US productions made every year.
The AFC did considerable research on other industries back in 2006. There findings can be found here:
http://www.afc.gov.au/policyandresearch/policy/film_industry.aspx
So, following on from that, I stand by my assertion that Schembri’s suggestion re loans is unhelpful and facile. Some films make a lot of money, most make a loss. Simply replacing funding with loans would very quickly kill the industry.
As for your comment about music, TV etc, my first point in reply would be that film is a very different beast to music in particular. For starters it is much, much more expensive. And it’s simplistic to say these other sectors survive with no support. Music festivals may be strictly profit making exercises, but do you really think the Australian acts playing at these festivals receive absolutely no support? For starters, Triple J is the radio station that introduces many of these acts to a wider audience - who do you think pays for the station? And where are their video clips played? On the ABC’s Rage. And many of the musos are trained in public educational institutions.
Similarly non-public TV stations may be profit making operations (though it is common knowledge that profits in free-to-air-TV have been declining for years), but why do you think there is very, very little Australian drama on TV now compared to the 1980s? All those famous mini-series like The Dismissal, Bodyline, etc etc were made during the hey day of 10BA, and all were subsidized in various ways by the state. This continues to be the case for most of the little local drama that still appears on our screens. You may not be aware of it, but nearly all of them have a state funding body involved in some way, usually at the level of funded script development. Ditto for the Australian docos that appear on our TV screens. And where do think most TV personnel are trained? In public educational institutions.
And it is not the case that tax deductions were on film profits during the 10BA years. It was on capital expenditure. I may be wrong about the new offset currently being introduced — I am in China and the Screen Australia site for some bizarre reason appears to be blocked — but I’m pretty certain the new offsets are not on profits either. The offset is on investments. I’ll stand corrected on that one if you find contrary info on the SA site.
My overall point here, and in the article, is that support takes many forms, and the screen industries cannot survive without it - in fact very few Australian arts would survive without various forms of subsidy. I’m not suggesting the current system is working. I cited 10BA simply as the one example of a period where we did have a flourishing industry. Yes, the system was rorted, but we also produced a lot of film and television and a lot of it was popular. I’m not saying lets pretend it’s 1985 again - I’m simply suggesting maybe there are some lessons there.
Finally, am I really suggesting Schembri doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this matter? If you mean his suggestion there is something wrong, no I completely agree. If you are referring to his suggestions for remedying the situation, well, I stand by my article. And I’m attacking the Australian media for wheeling out the same tired old opinions because it is not leading us anywhere. As I say above, we need a change or we need to let it die, but let’s stop recycling the same comments and whinging (from the industry, the critics, and the public) year in year out.
Cheers,
Dan Edwards
The best thing about the 10BA was it encouraged private investment in film. Private investors, apart from getting the very generous tax offset, would generally like to see a return.
With this in mind FILMS WERE MADE FOR AN AUDIENCE - Which seems to be the thrust of Schembri’s argument, right? They were commercial, Australian and some were classics like you mentioned above (‘Mad Max’, ‘Gallipoli’, etc)
Which we’re not doing now.
We are neither making commercial films, nor classics. In fifteen years nobody will remember ‘Ten Empty’, ‘The Tender Hook’ or ‘Bitter and Twisted’.
They’ll still remember ‘Mad Max’ though!
A blind hatred of ‘the elite’ is certainly ridiculous, but Dan, don’t you think that the new funding criteria are ‘elitist’?
The fact that they would have kept out the artists and directors that Australians have most appreciated over the years, while subidising a small group is grounds for concern.
Surely Screen Australia should act as a ‘leg up’ for film makers not a constant lifeline available only to a select few who have had it best?
Jimmy the exploder’s rant was ridiculous and showed that rather than expanding the conversation and acting to engage in a proper debate new view points, they prefer to act in fearful defence of their feifdom, backslapping and dolling out praise to people who already share their own views.
Hi Monkey,
Yes, 10BA encouraged private investment. That is precisely my point. It meant that during the 1980s there was fuding flowing into the industry from different sources, both government and private.The Creative Film Fund for example, administered by the AFC throughout much of the 80s, directly funded some great work during this period. At the same time a lot of big commercial features were made - if you re-read my article I cite Mad Max as a good example.
10BA still represented a form of tax-payer funded subsidy however. So which ever way you cut it, the sector has always received assistance and could not survive without it. If we accept this the debate can move on to what the best form of financial assistance might be. I completely agree that some kind of offset that enourages private money to enter the industry would be potentially highly beneficial. That is exactly what I say at the end of my article.
It’s easy and obvious to simply say MAKE FILMS FOR AN AUDIENCE. I was attempting to ask how this might be done. Journalists have been pointing out audiences are low for years. This is not news to anyone and does not help move the debate along. Instead of just bitching about the funding bodies and the filmmakers, why don’t we try and work towards a solution? To do this we need to take a honest look at what the reality of the situation.
Regards, Dan
Hi Scott,
Yes, I do think Screen Australia’s new finding criteria sound highly problematic. Which is why I only tentatively suggest the new offset is potentially a step in the right direction. I think encouraging private investment is vital, but that doesn’t mean the new offset has necessarily got it completely right. I’m not in Australia right now, and don’t know enough of the detail to offer a rigorous dissection of the new guidelines.
I also agree Jimmy the Exploder’s rant was ridiculous. I wasn’t endorsing his comments or attitude. I cited it as an example of the entrenched positions and unhelpful, simplistic assertions being made on both sides of this debate. Which is why I write:
"From within the industry itself there is an unwillingness — or inability — to articulate a meaningful response to criticisms or the sector’s problems."
I’d put the Exploders comments squarely in the above category.
Regards, Dan
Hi Dan
Thanks again for your article and the considered reply to my comments.
Firstly, let’s start with the point "if there was money to be made, business would be making it." Conceptually, this is a kind of flip-side of the efficient markets theories that have been so discredited by financial events in recent months. What you’re really saying here is that the market always gets it right: hence, if the market isn’t making money, it must be because there is no money to be made.
But we know at least some Australian films *do* make money, so the problems of the industry can’t be totally uniform. Likewise, I’d suggest that many of the problems of Australian films are not merely related to market failures - the small size of the market, an inability to compete with big Hollywood studios etc - but at least *in part* related to the quality of the products that the industry produces.
Sure, we live in a mixed economy and the state regulates and supports culture in all kinds of ways. But, to my mind, it’s not good enough simply to argue that because many films don’t make money, the state should support their production. Plenty of small businesses don’t make money and yet don’t receive state support. They go out of business instead. And when you get state support constantly propping up an entire industry, you can get to the stage Australia is at with our car industry, where large corporations hold elected governments to ransom while taxpayers foot the bill for products consumers don’t want.
All this makes me sound like an "economic rationalist." I’m not. I’m all in favour of state support for culture, including our film and TV industry. But we need to make good arguments for why we should do this - instead of all the other useful things government money can be spent on. I think we’re funding the wrong films in the wrong way.
And your point about other artforms not being able to survive without government funding? I think it’s a pretty flimsy one. The Big Day Out’s production budget would easily exceed almost any Australian film (except "Australia") made last year, receives no government funding and could comfortably survive without any free marketing on Triple J.
Finally, a point of information: the 10BA tax concession was *by definition* an offset against profits, because only profits are taxable! The 150% level of course meant that more than the initial investment could be written off - to quote the very document you link to:
In other words, you can write off your capex, and for more than the amount you put in, but only against tax you’re already paying. A money-losing business pays no tax.
Dan,
Thank you for the first informed commentary on the local film industry in what seems like decades.
Your comments re the pathetic standard of reporting and debate within the Australian media are spot on…… year after year they dredge up the same misconceptions, informed by minimal (if any) research in the process creating part of the problem we now have in the relationship between the Australian audience and Australian films. If only the mainstream media would commission writers to actually do some research and write something substantial, but it just doesn’t happen.
As to the question from one of the respondents above re the "quality" of (The Age’s) Jim Schembri’s writing ; the simple answer to your question is "yes’ - Schembri has no idea of the workings of the production, distribution or exhibition industry - as illustrated regularly in his writing. To anyone in the industry he is a joke, thus the (admittedly purile) response from The Black Balloon writer at the AFI Awards.
The other key issue that Dan touches on but doesn’t explode, is the anachronistic suggestion that the govt agencies ( the cultural elites) determine what films get made - an amusing remnant from the 70s post -Whitlam era. Anyone working in production or distribution simply knows this is rubbish and has been for some time, but the media love dragging this one out for an airing, without ever researching just who did finance any given film. The recently wound up FFC played no part in the decision making for the last 18 or so years, yet was the primary investor in most Australian films in that period. Here’s a new though for the likes of Bodey,Schembri,Stratton,Boland,Naglasaz and all the shock-jock/right wing Phillip Adams’ of the Australian media : all these films have commercial investment and marketplace involvement, before they are made.That’s how they GET made. And guess what ? - the marketplace gets it wrong too, and most of the time! Yes, just like every other film industry around the world. Yes, the people who bring you the hits also bring you the flops, just more of them. Pundits and embittered filmmakers can blame the govt agencies( just as they blame the distributors and reviewers when the films don’t connect with an audience ) ;it helps them avoid identifying where the blame really lies.
A final note to Dan ; the new producer offset scheme is not related to profits and (as any active producer will tell you) is not particularly attractive to private investors at all - they would probably prefer to have 10BA return. Of course like most people, they forget the dozens of total duds made each year under 10BA funding.
Keep at it Dan and newmatilda.
The RoadRunner
And here I ws thinking arts and culture had become just as boring a topic as money and finance!
What a fabulous thought provoking piece Dan, and what equally great comments in response.
Well now if somebody would just start producing creative, innovative and interesting movies, perhaps boors such as myself would help to fund the industry by spending money to watch the stuff!
Hi Ben Eltham,
RE 10AB: Much of the money under 10BA was invested by companies who were not primarily film production companies ie their profits were NOT coming from the films they were investing in. Companies made money doing whatever they were doing, then put some of their profits into films so they could write the investment off against their tax bills. Hence all private money from outside the industry flooding into film production. Many films were funded so companies could claim the tax deduction, and the films went straight to the shelf and were never seen. Hence all the rorting that went on - the companies often had absolutely no interest in the film itself, nor whether it made any money at all, let alone a profit. On the other hand, a lot of great commercial cinema was made, as I’ve said above.
RE the overall question of government support, Ben you have still not replied to my original supporting statement. If film industries as a whole are profitable free market enterprises, why are there no profitable industries that do not receive state assistance, except those in the US and India? I am not saying the market always gets it right. It’s just a simple fact, proven by over a century of global film production — it’s very very difficult to make money producing cinema. One or two profitable films do not represent a profitable industry. If you don’t believe me, go and read some books on film history. Even Hollywood very nearly went bust following the forced break up of their monopolistic, vertically-integrated operations following the Second World War. They only survived by becoming horizontally integrated instead. As I said in the originally article, the HWD studios survive by marketing film related products — everything from CDs to electronic games — rather than money from box office sales.
In any case, I don’t think we’re fundamentally in disagreement. Nowhere do I say the right films are currently being funded. The question I’m asking is how we can constructively change the situation — a situation which no-one at present seems happy with. At no point have I defended the status quo.
Cheers, Dan
Hi Rockjaw,
Maybe we could make a movie about all the argy-bargy on this thread? :-)
Cheers, Dan
Hi Ben,
Just an added comment I meant to include in my reply above.
Even if rebates were on film profits (and as I and another comment said above this was not the case for 10BA, nor is it the case with the new producers rebate), it is still the government giving up tax revenue, which means it is a form of subsidy. So my original contention still stands - even at the height of 10BA the sector was underwritten by government subsidies. Not direct funding (in the case of 10BA productions) but a subsidy nevertheless.
Regards, Dan
"Most directorial talents, from George Lucas to Antonioni, made many films before producing the work for which they are remembered."
This is wrong. Unless you count little films shot on 16mm before college graduation, that is. In that sense they are no different from thousands of film nuts all over the world.
American Graffiti was Lucas’s second movie. It’s success was the catalyst for the massive Star Wars phenomenon.
Even his first movie, "THX 1138 4EB" won first prize at the National Student Film Festival.
Hi Leo,
You’re quite right in terms of directing features, so perhaps Lucas was not the best example. But he did worked on a lot of short films as a director, cinematographer and in a range of other roles, and had roles on several features, such as camera operator on the famous feature doco Gimme Shelter, before he moved on to directing features.
My point is that in more active industries most filmmakers build up considerable experience before producing their most notable work. With the very limited amount of production that currently takes place in Australia it’s difficult for Australian film personnel to build up that kind of experience.
Cheers, Dan
"It’s easy and obvious to simply say MAKE FILMS FOR AN AUDIENCE. I was attempting to ask how this might be done. "
Make GENRE movies.
Make GOOD thrillers.
Make FUNNY comedies.
Write ENGAGING scripts.
Quit making tired, overwrought, underwritten kitchen sink dramas that substitute ‘worthiness’ for content. And fire EVERYONE involved in marketing films in this country.