ADVERTISEMENT

Screen Australia explains its investment process following criticism – Part 1

When British crime writer Lynda La Plante took to the stage for a wide-ranging ABC Radio discussion earlier this month, few would have expected Screen Australia to feature so prominently.

But the government agency’s decision to reject her project about the last woman hanged in Australia (which had actor Nicole Kidman and director Gillian Armstrong attached), prompted a vitriolic attack from the eccentric creator of the successful Prime Suspect TV series.

Filmmaking is, if nothing else, a passionate business.

The government agency won’t talk about individual decisions – a stance it says protects the privacy of applicants. However, the government department contacted IF magazine shortly after La Plante’s outburst to explain its investment process, which is often criticised by filmmakers.

“We are very respectful of writers, producers and directors,” feature film consultant Matthew Dabner says of his and colleague Victoria Treole’s approach to evaluation.

“Before Victoria and I started the job, it was just a discussion between the evaluation manager… the producer and director – we’ve brought the writers into the conversation because we thought that’s helpful to have that voice in the room. We’ve brought the investment managers into those meetings so they are across various aspects of the production as well. So we do our absolute level best to be clear and fair.”

Dabner and Treole were appointed in January 2010, replacing previous assessors Scott Meek and Tristram Miall. Their assessment of eligible projects (which must have a marketplace attachment to get in the door) is the first in a three-part process.

Treole says they are very aware that people have often spent years of their lives working on the projects they are putting up for assessment.

“You always hope for a good outcome – you want people to be at their ease, you want to arm them with as much information as you are able to, to help them make the best decision about the next step.

“But we’re also charged with the responsibility to kind of interrogate the ambition of the project, vision of the team, the firmness of the financial attachments (the distribution and sales) – some people do find that very confronting but that’s our job.”

The filmmakers and the assessment team will discuss the project at one or two meetings. A wide array of factors comes into play including an analysis of the quality of the team and the project’s potential, as well as Screen Australia-specific issues such as the diversity of its overall slate, its cultural objectives, and talent escalation goals.

“Audience does sit in the centre of most of the major criteria,” Treole says.

Part two of this article is continued here.

  1. all the criteria are subjective and qualitative. “the quality of the team” what does that mean – how famous they are or what film school they went to? BS! The audience wants to see a good story that is relevant to their lives and that is told in a way that is appropriate to the subject matter of the story. Stars are irrelevant – names are irrelevant. Casting stars in independent Australian films is provincial cringing. Geoffry Rush was a ‘nobody’ until he was 52 (or something).

  2. That project about the last woman hanged in Australia with Nicole Kidman sounds fantastic – I didn’t even know about it! I’d LOVE Nicole to do an Australian film where she actually plays an Aussie – this sounds like the perfect role!

  3. “We are very respectful of writers, producers and directors”
    So respectful, that when they reject your application that you’ve spent weeks preparing, they send you a generic email to let you know! Nice!

  4. so the head of Screen Australia gets “paid more than the PM”? The paper cries. No Transparency, millions of dollars and quality of “assessment” is made by a group of “managers” for the Benefit of whom and what?

  5. people are hired at SA who are like minded, they have in common the fear of being found out as talentless fakes in the wider industry. What hope has originality.

  6. Why is the film industry (also known as the entertainment industry) run like an exclusive high school instead of a multi million dollar business which it is. NO company or organisation with millions of dollars at risk would continue to operate in such a self demoting way. New concepts+good product=returning revenue. sure, every second person and his dog feel they have the next best thing and a lot is pure passion and crap but if a committee was made up of members who had a personal financial attachment then money distribution may be handled differently.
    finding funds for friends is still poising the industry, and trying to buy in stars in just a bad.
    Think of product. SAW is regarded as one of the most successful horror series to date yet they had to take it off shore to get it made. WHERE was the Australian funding for these two Aussies? Who got there funding instead? How much money did Australian cinema miss out on because of this decision? How many Australian JOBS in every sector of the industry missed out????
    Casino’s are part of the Entertainment industry. They offer cheap food to attract patrons, They adjust there product to match that of the Patron demand and they re-invest in any commercially buyable product that will drive growth and retain margin. no of this is done by the Australian Film Industry.
    I will suggest that maybe it’s time to have a series look at funding and how those who are given money are on a payback platform to help validation of commercial viability. A Global economy downturn is coming and disposable income will be tight, so lets turn things around and make our industry the envy of the world.

  7. I don’t understand how a British writer should be eligible for Australian funding.

    It’s all well and good that it’s an Australian story but how can we encourage the career’s of Australian writers when we have to go overseas to find our story tellers?

  8. Why won’t you post comments critical of Matthew Dabner and how he treats writers and producers at SA when you have no problem posting comments praising him? I.F. is meant to be unbiased?

  9. I second Jennifer and La Plante’s comments. I also encountered the same kind of patronising attitude from Matthew Dabner at SA. I dare say the three of us aren’t the only ones. Why didn’t IF seek out filmmakers who might rebut Dabner’s laughable quote in this article that he “respects filmmakers” who come before SA?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *