ADVERTISEMENT

Brian Rosen: Screen Australia funding has been dysfunctional

·
Funding
·

Brian Rosen led the Film Finance Corporation between 2003 and 2008 and has over 20 years experience as a producer in Australia and overseas. He has also led Hoyts and spent 10 years in America as president of Classic Films USA. He considers the original intent behind the Producer Offset and whether it has been a success.

Over two years have elapsed since the creation of Screen Australia and the Producer Offset.

We know the collapse of the traditional presale model and the shuttering of the studio specialty divisions has ravaged the world of independent film.

With a further reduction in Screen Australia’s feature film funding program, what should the mandate be for direct and indirect funding?

Former Arts Minister Peter Garrett in his speech at MIFF in 2008 stated: “Projects which can attract the Offset should first go to the marketplace to secure the remainder of their funding. The new indirect funding model is designed to be market driven and to attract more private investment to the sector… Top up of the Offset projects from direct funding to Screen Australia should be capped based on clear criteria developed by Screen Australia taking into account cultural merit.”

So taking the Minister’s position that there should be a clear difference between marketplace driven projects using the Producer Offset and projects relying on Screen Australia funding, what should be the criteria that differentiates the two?

With only $23 million available for investment in features, a strategy should be put in place stating the kind of slate the agency wishes to support.

Personally, I have no problem with an agency setting such an agenda because then my expectations would be tempered accordingly.

An example might be a slate that would incorporate 10 to 13 films made up of two to three indigenous stories, three to five emerging filmmakers, three to five culturally significant films (eg Beneath Hill 60, Animal Kingdom, The Cup).

In that way, a producer would have a much better handle as to what the agency is looking to support and if a film does not fit that criteria, then it clearly will have to be market driven.

Funding to date at Screen Australia has been dysfunctional.

Why would a Paramount-supported $27 million film need $3 million in direct subsidy in what is obviously a marketplace project?

If box office is the criteria then the investment is prudent but therein lies the rub – should an agency’s main criteria be box office?

Success in its many forms should be sought, but the interminable demand that all films invested in by an agency should be box office-driven is a ridiculous political and media mantra that should be dismissed.

Why? Because as the much-quoted William Goldman states “nobody knows” and with no disrespect to the people working at agencies they are not equipped, nor should they have to be, to operate in a commercial world.

An agency’s role first and foremost is to create a robust environment of support that allows talent to shine and when that happens box office will follow in its own good time.

Going back to the Minister’s speech: is that the kind of differentiation in criteria he wanted the industry and Screen Australia to adopt?

This article first appeared in IF #135, September 2010 – subscribe here.

Tags
Related

2 Comments

  1. Without really wanting to get involved in a discussion, i thought that I’d point out that Brian is describing a policy which existed for many years of relatively successful films prior to 10ba (not attributing their success to the funding model either).
    The AFC had exactly this philosophy. (And also peer assessment!!) In an era in which most people who wanted to make feature films had considerable filmmaking experience already….. govt finance was to allow them to make films outside the constrictions of the marketplace. Indeed, in those days talk of “art” had a broad cultural relevance.)
    I don’t know whether following the guidelines Brian suggests would result in better films, but at least it save us the embarrassment of direct government support (subsidy) for films aimed at marketplace finance.
    In a growing climate of “economic rationalism”, the FFC was established on the fiction of commercial viability which it could never achieve. Ever since, there has been muddied confusion over the function of government funding — no one talks about “why” and national cultural issues are off the agenda.
    Brian’s timely remarks help us see through the murk a bit better — and many further questions could equally be raised — and even, were we to be open to it, collectively debated.
    (altho at this point not by me — I’m flat out working with the ACS on a history of Australian cinematography. Keep your eyes peeled….)

    Reply

  2. I think the idea of funding via the Australian people’s tax dollar should be driven to give them benefit. People pay for tickets because they choose to go and see a film they may like.

    Speaking at a ground level and there are many online forums discussing this (so do your own search), people have not been liking Australian films except for a small group of liberal arts connoisseurs. In fact some people will not go to a film based on the fact that it is Australian purely because of previous negative experiences. In that sense Australians are paying to destroy the film industry…

    Screen Australia and others need to do appropriate research of their market audience by directly talking to them rather than offering explanation of collected statistics and trying to side track their responsibilities of providing results.

    The idea of funding emerging talent should be to encourage them to live in a commercial world and find the ever moving balances between commerce and art because that is reality. To that extent, people who are talented enough to connect to their audiences will survive if guided the right way. People will invest in the local industry if they see rewards. That way the industry is encouraged to grow instead of being given handouts. I think if you have to subsidise an industry
    you may as well do it with the intent of helping it grow rather than just letting it live in a unrealistic self-funded almost totalitarian state.

    Australian stories should not be guided by a few privileged people who rarely have lifestyles which afford an insight into the Australian psyche. Film is not about education, it is about self discovery and gaining deeper insights. It is about pushing the barriers of dialectics to obtain a mutual understanding of reality in the now, not some perceived Utopian vision of the future. Make documentaries if you are into education.

    There was a time when Australians were proud of their films. Even Mad Max with it’s over the top Americanisms created a new genre and had something to say about global oil wars and environmentalism.

    While Lantana and Animal Kingdom are good films… really what are they saying that is new about Australia?
    Where is the enveloped pushed? In respect are they even retrograde?

    In this respect people in those agencies should be accountable fully for their job positions. Make a few mistakes here and there… but really the box office reflects the wishes of the audience and the audience has already paid their money through taxes. The taxes are not paid to a few small liberal, high middle class people playing their little games and how they want to create their own little utopian state.

    In these respects i believe accountability should be a very high priority.

    Reply

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