With the media spotlight and public attention drawn to it now, the AFC in this Justice League debate, have really shown their true colors. In my opinion their longstanding argument about how funding approved projects need to be rich in "Australian content" is, without wanting to sound overtly critical, narrow minded at best, and parochial at worst.
It strikes me that they arent really looking at the bigger picture, that is to say, beyond the content of said films being produced here, and instead looking more at the impact that securing a big budget film would have on our beleaguered industry. Im talking about jobs here, more than anything, in the production and post-production industries specifically.
Miller very astutely points to the NZ film industry as a prime example of this, and rightly so too. There was no argument being kicked around from the NZ government and funding bodies that "This Middle Earth your talking about doesn't sound like its got much Kiwi content in it, so look for your funding elsewhere". Quite the opposite in fact, with a large portion of funding being slapped on the table - and as a result the industries over there, particularly post production and special FX have flourished immensely, expanding to secure further work on many big budget films from major Hollywood studios.
How many times have we heard this film synopsis?
"A touching coming of age story, set in rural outback Australia - possibly based on a Tim Winton Novel?" - The answer is: Too many times.
We continually laud these kind of films for some reason, and prop them up on pedestals every year when the AFI's roll around, but their impact on the industry as a whole, is sadly rather insignificant. Each year we talk about how the industry needs some kind of shot in the arm, but yet the funding bodies continue to fund projects that at the bottom-line are considered "Safe" - When was the last time Australia made a decent Genre movie that had some kind of worldwide impact? Mad Max?? Crocodile Dundee ??
Working on Hollywood features would be raising our collective standards of work, instead of the same old story we hear about some quick VFX being needed, for bugger-all money because its an Australian production with no budget to speak of attached..
Our funding bodies and government seriously need to take a leaf from NZ's book and invest not only in the tired old traditional fare of "Australian stories, about Australian people" but also look beyond that and secure work that keeps the Australian film and TV industries in production and post production expanding and raising the standard of work.
We can only hope that someone listens!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Editorial (Rant): Re: The australian film industry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there are a lot of layers you need to look at when comparing NZ to Aust. at a business level (As much as we'd all like to think the industry was around to be Creative/Cultural, it exists to make money for without this it would not exist).
ReplyDeleteIn Aust. there are many industries that get government handouts to stay in business that employ a vast number of people and create a very large economic stimulous, the automotive industry is one. Unfotunatley for the film industry, the automotive industry employs a much larger group that draws on other aspects of our economy creating a much larger stimulous to the overall growth of the country. Trying to tell the public that taxes have to go up to help fund the film industry when the Aust. film industry employs so few people and Aust. films have such a poor reputation at the cinema would be a hard job for the government. Its not a vote winner.
NZ on the other hand has very few industries employing even fewer people, so when Mr Jackson took Rings to NZ the government there saw an opertunity to create an industry. The film industry there has a greater impact on the NZ overall economy due to the shear size of there economy in the first place. In NZ as a greater percentage of the population is employed by the film industry it is a lot easier to raise taxes for funding. Also the NZ dollar is alot lower than the Aust.. It would not surprise me also if there was some under the table deal between to NZ and Aust. governments for Aust. not to push too hard, for all the above reasons.
In Australia one possible way to stimulate production would be to disolve the funding bodies totally allowing the government to increase tax rebates/consessions for production, this would create a real market for private funding to flow into possibly better scripts rather than those dicided on by the funding bodies, as money will only flow into movies that are more likley to do better at the cinema. The flow on effects of this would be to create a greater awareness of the film industry as there would be a greater number of Aust. based films creeping into the 'Box Office Hits' category creating an ever growing level of private funding.
Like everyone else here, I thoroughly reject the notion that funding bodies tinkering with content is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIf the rebates are limited to 'Australian Content', the results are obvious;
1 - it reduces the pile of crap films produced, thereby reducing the likelihood of a good one slipping through.
2 - it reduces the audience, which means that even if an Australian film that didn't suck were to find itself in a cinema, there'd be no-one talking about it and no money to promote it internationally.
The last film to fall into this category was Chopper - now Andrew Dominik directs Brad Pitt and we get...
Muriel's Wedding - the lynchpin of Peter Garrett's argument when he spruiks for Australian content - is a well written comedy that _happens_ to be set in Australia. It blows my mind that this fails to register. If the location doesn't directly contribute to the narrative, then the location is irrelevant. Wolf Creek = location relevant. Crappy Film With Susie Porter About Attractive Woman And Her Dull Relationships = location not relevant.
People want to see films about interesting characters doing interesting things. Expecting others find value in the novelty of an Australian made film is like expecting Lada's cars to sell well outside of Russia.
First and foremost AFI and other funding bodies have to look at the quality and quantity of Australian movies. A good example is that new film "Hey Hey It's Esther Blueburger" which once again proves Australian film makers are quite honestly floundering.
ReplyDeleteIt's honestly been a long time since I've been interested or excited about an Australian film, as Nixy pointed out, Chopper is brilliant, and so is Rabbit Proof Fence, but these are amongst the only Aussie movies I can vouch for.
For now, if a movie were to come out that was Australian, I'd immediately skip it. When are they going to stop using the same scenario over and over again? It makes me want to punch trees and de-grass lawns.