This week at newmatilda I take a look at the suggestion of screen producers association president Anthony Ginnane that Australian film funding needs to stop using cultural criteria and shift decisively to commercialism.
The weird thing, Anthony, is that it's been doing this for the last three decades already...
Extract:
Comments at newmatilda rather than here, please.
Extract:
"As a studio guest with Ginnane on Radio National's Australia Talks last week, I was amazed to hear him listing the box office figures for past hits like Crocodile Dundee and Happy Feet before declaring that "here we are giving T-shirts these days to Australian producers whose films make a million dollars. They should be lined up and shot".
"I assumed I misheard him: no representative of a peak film and TV producers' organisation would suggest on national radio that some of his own members be lined up and executed for the crime of earning only $1 million at the box office — surely?This week I downloaded the broadcast and listened again. There it was, clear as day: "They should be lined up and shot".
"A drum roll and blindfold please for producers Melanie Coombs (Mary and Max, domestic box office earnings $1.4 million), John Maynard and Rebecca Williamson (Balibo, $1.3 million), and Emile Sherman, Steve Jacobs and Anna Maria Monticelli (Disgrace, $1.1 million). One last cigarette, folks?..."
Imageaubreyedwards.com)
18 comments:
As the vultures pick over the corpse of the Australian film industry, I haven't read a single news article by a prominent filmmaker/commentator in the Aust film community who has mentioned Charlie and Boots. An 'ocker comedy'. This film is the 2nd highest film of the year - $3,847,596. That's more than double the box office of Beautiful Kate ($1.6M), Balibo ($1.3M), etc. That's 20% more that Samson & Delilah ($3.2M). It's the SECOND highest grossing Australian film of the year! But which films are referenced? Mao's Last Dancer, Samson, Beautiful Kate, Balibo, etc... Why? Perhaps Australian filmmakers DON'T REALLY want to make films for Australian audiences. They're too above that. They only drop references to the aforementioned films because they're the type of successful films that THEY would consider making. They appear to think that Charlie and Boots is crap, even though the punters love it. (PS - I have no interest in making Charlie and Boots. Or seeing it. But I'm honest about that).
My challenge - take every argument/email/lecture you're read in recent times and substitute 'Charlie and Boots' for 'Mao's Last Dancer'. The arguments still stand up. Box office, audience desire, etc. But would the authors/speakers feel comfortable about making the same statement? Probably not. Which suggests that they genuinely don't want to make films that audiences want to see. But they want to be seen to be doing that.
Another thing. I love Ginnane's observations from an ABC radio interview (abbreviated):
* We make a successful horror film (eg Wolf Creek). Then we make a glut of horror films. None of these films are successful at the box office. BUT (here's the kicker) they're still MORE successful than social realist films.
* After a glut of bad horror films, we make a glut of social realist films (which are RARELY successful at the box office). Why? Because we tell ourselves that if we can't be succeed at the box office then we'll measure success with awards, festivals laurels, etc.
* Along comes a successful comedy. Then we make a glut of comedies. None of these films are successful at the box office. BUT they're still MORE successful than social realist films.
* After a glut of bad comedies, we make a glut of social realist films (which are never successful at the box office). Why? Because we tell ourselves that if we can't be succeed at the box office then we'll measure success with awards, festivals laurels, etc.
Etc, etc, etc...
True, so true!
Finally an answer to all our problems - Paul Hogan!
David, you comment summarises my point nicely. I assume you've never invested in an Australian film before (except indirectly as a tax payer). Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you had/did, you might have a different attitude. It's fine to have such an attitude when you're not accountable. :)
Maybe I'm missing your point. My point is that putting Paul Hogan in every film would run aground upon the scarcity theory of economics, not to mention pragmatics.
Okay sure, the next Hoges movie might be a good investment in 5 years if he has another face lift but 6-12 Hoges movies a year would not a bankable business make.
We haven't succeeded in building a star system here. Our stars piss off for greener pastures, although a few have drifted back in recent times and that has been a boost to the coffers.
Critics, filmmakers and film snobs hate Hoges. Audiences love him. Hence the box office of Charlie & Boots. And the absence of references to its success.
Our Aussie stars do return from Hollywood. The problem is that they're often cast in films which the audiences don't want to see, despite their attachment. A star can't fix a script that no one is interested in. See Candy and Little Fish.
Charlie & Boots doesn't interest me in the slightest. But at least I recognise that's what our audiences want. I'd prefer to entertain than proselytize.
Anon, why do you assume Hoges is responsible for C&B's success? After Croc-2 he released a string of duds including Lightning Jack and Croc Dundee 3 Goes to LaLaLand that failed at the box office both here and internationally.
Let's give Shane Jacobson some credit.It's the combination of these two actors that seems to have apealed to audiences. That and the way the film was scripted and directed.
I'm not assuming Hoges is the sole credit for the film's success. Not at all. I was addressing his involvement as a MAJOR factor because of the initial comment by another blogger.
By the way, speaking of Hoge's 'duds':
CROCODILE DUNDEE IN LOS ANGELE -$39,438,674
LIGHTNING JACK - $16,821,273
That's just the box office. I'm not including DVD and cable sales. And these films weren't made for budgets of $100M+. C'mon, it's too easy to bash Hoges. Too easy. As I've said twice already, I don't like Hoge's films except Croc Dundee 1 & 2. But I think an unbiased and critical analysis is essential. That's why I'm trying to challenge the film industry status quo to iniclude such films in the analysis. Prime Mover has a budget of $5M+. Now check out the box office. Actually, don't. It's heart breaking.
'That and the way the film was scripted and directed...'
So why aren't commentators such as yourself and others talking about it? That's why I visit this site. Because of it's critical analysis. If we're going to ask what audiences want, let's consider ALL films. Regardless of our personal opinion of them.
Now look at the international box office of Beautiful Kate and other films. Sorry, what international box office? Will there be a substantial box office in the future? It's unlikely unfortunately. BK is a very good film. Balibo is excellent. But, c'mon, let's be realistic. They're not connecting. Or distributors and cinemas have no faith in them.
Anon (why anon, in identally - can you please at least give some idea of your background regarding the film industry?): I'm waiting for CHARLIE AND BOOTS to come to DVD. It disappeared from all CBD and Eastern suburbs cinema screens with the exception of Pagewood - miles from where I live - within about 2 weeks of opening. Pagewood went the following week. I was psised off because I wanted to see it and had not had time to get to the preview screenings.
I contacted producer David Redman and he confirmed the film had not performed in the East though was still screening in western suburban and regional areas. He was trying to persuade exhibitors to give it another chance in the Eastern suburbs but obviously nothing came of it.
I have limited time available and, unless I absolutely have to, don't believe in driving half-way across Sydney to see a film that I know I'll be able to see on DVD in a few months. There's too many films coming out every week for that.
I agree with Anon. Surely the question filmmakers (in the first instance) and film funding bodies should be asking is, 'Is there an audience for this film?' A small audience isn't no audience but budgets should be revised (down) accordingly. Prime Mover is a classic case. In the decade-long rush to the screen did anybody pause to ask, 'Is there an audience for this film?' Clearly it's not country-folk (witness the failed release strategy), it's not the kids in the multiplexes, and it's not middle class arthouse patrons. So who is it? Michael Dorman and Emily Barclay might be good actors but can they open a $5 million+ movie? Apparently not. They weren't helped by a terrible poster and near invisible marketing campaign - seems the distributor wasn't throwing good money after bad. I feel for David Caesar - Mullet was a great little film that rewarded far beyond its modest scale. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Prime Mover had roadkill written all over it from the beginning. Maybe the filmmakers and film funding bodies should've asked the hard questions before they got the hard answers.
AnonAnonAnon: You are dead right. I've been told that Caesar was actively encouraged by film agency personnel to film this project.
I agree Mullet was very fine but you have to wonder (i) which readers they used for Prime Mover (disclosure - I've read for agencies on occasion - though this script did not cross my path); (ii) who they thought the potential audience would be (as you so rightly point out).
PM is too working class to be appeal to the art-house crowd in Prahran and Woollahra, but insufficently filled with the entertainment values likely to give it appeal west of Leichhardt. Result? Stranded with no audience.
And what genre would you say the film is in? Romance? Check. Another Oz family-issues-drama? Check, Thriller? Check.
But it wasn't any of these things convincingly. Look at the way it veered into thriller mode half-way through, then decided to drop the idea about 20 mins later. The script wasnt just flawed. It was self-evidently a mess.
I think the arguments by the Anons is complemented very well by this article:
Films in search of an audience
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/films-in-search-of-an-audience/story-e6frg8n6-1225809216615
I've been asking the same question about Australia (the film) as Charlie and Boots. And Prime Mover. Both referenced in The Australian article.
Idiot Box... was flawed
Mullet...was boring
Prime Mover...a mess
In this small cottage industry you can simply "fail upwards". Where was the hard as nails and insightful Executive Producer who was asking " I think we can do better David? ". I've seen this happen, deluded conviction and passion out manouvering common sense and taste. Great Films are built on a platform of pragmatic insight and creative brilliance, the key creatives working in tandem asking the tough questions. Not allowing a Dirwector to "Fail Upwards" in a cottage industry that can ill afford it and has abundance of hungry, talented filmamkers looking for a break...FUNDING BODIES...Cast your bloody nets wider for Christ's Sake...and change a few funding submission rules and invest heavily in script development and screenwriter/ Producer / Director partnerships that have sound insight. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..shame
Lord MacGuffin, I disagree with you over Idiot box (funny) and Mulelt (engaging), though agree completely on Prime Mover.
"Failing upwards" is hardly a problem in this industry. Very few filmmakers get to make a 2nd feature, let alone a 3rd or 4th. It's been an industry of 1st-time filmmakers for too long on the principle let's keep pissing them against the wall and maybe some of it might stick. PS There have been surveys to back this up.
Lynden..c'mon mate...Idiot Box...the ending? Flawed and yes some funny moments...but funny moments do not make a quality script or production, but Mister Ceasar did show promise. Mullett..boring..boring and patronizing, especially to anybody who grew up in a small town. Prime Mover...confused
"Nobody knows anything"
William Goldman
This old model of filmmaking is over and out. Where's the audience participation?
Why after a decades of average film funding decisions do we still trust that the people we employ to handle our Taxpayer dollars are the people in the know? Up to date, current, well researched with a finger on the pulse. I've only seen a bit of Prime Mover...I walked out in disgust...how dumb do these people think we are?
If the people who greenlit this film worked for a major studio they'd be sacked...why do filmmakers get one bite at the cherry but the series of " In the Know" funding bodies who rubber stamp one bad production after another "Fail Upwards"
Making a film that connects with an audiences isn't easy...but it isn't impossible...audience participation is the key...social media is a big chunk of the solution..don't agree..read this link
http://culturehacker.workbookproject.com/2009/12/moving-filmmakers-to-a-transmedia-business-model/
I was having a meeting a few weeks ago with a friend who works for a major Hollywood studio...we were talking shop...somehow Prime Mover came into the discussion...we both shook our heads...my friend went on to tell me how the script had landed on his desk...we were both shocked as to how this film got the thumbs up.
As a screenwriter I have written a number of turkeys that have never found homes..half baked confused narratives that will never see the light of day..thank god. Its part of the writing process...you get better at writing as a result.
Do you get better as a filmmaker if you keep making one average film after another...does our cottage industry get better, healthier? Those in the know, the trusted few, having been steering the ship for too long..towards the jagged rocks of mediocrity..have now given our industry the kind of reputation that has me telling people I work in..."intellectual property"
I mean good luck to anybody who makes a film...but we need better checks and balances in the development stage...it is after all..."our money"
Lynden..c'mon mate...Idiot Box...the ending? Flawed and yes some funny moments...but funny moments do not make a quality script or production, but Mister Ceasar did show promise. Mullett..boring..boring and patronizing, especially to anybody who grew up in a small town. Prime Mover...confused
"Nobody knows anything"
William Goldman
This old model of filmmaking is over and out. Where's the audience participation?
Why after a decades of average film funding decisions do we still trust that the people we employ to handle our Taxpayer dollars are the people in the know? Up to date, current, well researched with a finger on the pulse. I've only seen a bit of Prime Mover...I walked out in disgust...how dumb do these people think we are?
If the people who greenlit this film worked for a major studio they'd be sacked...why do filmmakers get one bite at the cherry but the series of " In the Know" funding bodies who rubber stamp one bad production after another "Fail Upwards"
Making a film that connects with an audiences isn't easy...but it isn't impossible...audience participation is the key...social media is a big chunk of the solution..don't agree..read this link
http://culturehacker.workbookproject.com/2009/12/moving-filmmakers-to-a-transmedia-business-model/
I was having a meeting a few weeks ago with a friend who works for a major Hollywood studio...we were talking shop...somehow Prime Mover came into the discussion...we both shook our heads...my friend went on to tell me how the script had landed on his desk...we were both shocked as to how this film got the thumbs up.
As a screenwriter I have written a number of turkeys that have never found homes..half baked confused narratives that will never see the light of day..thank god. Its part of the writing process...you get better at writing as a result.
Do you get better as a filmmaker if you keep making one average film after another...does our cottage industry get better, healthier? Those in the know, the trusted few, having been steering the ship for too long..towards the jagged rocks of mediocrity..have now given our industry the kind of reputation that has me telling people I work in..."intellectual property"
I mean good luck to anybody who makes a film...but we need better checks and balances in the development stage...it is after all..."our money"
"Failing Upwards" is a problem, and I'm not just talking about Directors here...I'm talking right across the industry...I've read the survey you're talking about and yes few filmmakers get two bites at the cherry...but the people behind the
"The Tender Hook" didn't just appear on the scene with that monstorous turkey...they'd been swimming with the sharks for a long time.
Your Lordship, sounds like you should start a blog - you have plenty to say. You may have missed should my blog series on problems in Australian screenwriting which ran early last year (2008) following an article I wrote for The Australian (now removed from the paper's website - I'll repost here).
First of my blog series starts here:
http://eyeswiredopen.blogspot.com/2008/01/where-australian-scripts-tend-to-fall.html
For the remaining interview transcripts click on Scriptwriting (in the long tag list on the right of the this page) then scroll to the bottom. Happy Xmas reading!
No Lynden I read it, cut it out and it now hangs framed above my desk, I wipe the dust off and read it from time to time, that article came at a time when I think I was close to creative madness..or just your everyday writers paranoid madness, not sure.
I think one of the problems with Australian screenwriting and filmmaking in general is creative intelligence,(from the screenwriter and all the way up to the Director and especially the Producers) curiosity, application and a willingness to learn. I have met so many Directors that have walked out of our filmmaking education systems without a clue about scriptwriting, nothing. Self expressions? They have it by the bucket load. But writing ability? It either doesn't exist, but they think it does and have no real desire to learn, or a desire to be highly critical of their own work, this is a very, very bad combination for Writer/ Directors.
If you're going to be a screenwriter you have to trust that your first idea, is going to be as good as your tenth etc etc etc..if not? Get out of the game.
Yes you have to be protective of your ideas, fight the fight, debate, collaborate...but not to the point that the whole project will suffer, you have to be totally submissive to the narrative.
Often I meet delicate cherubs who ask for advice on a script, when I send back notes, more often than not they are ignored..."I simply didn't get it" is the usual mantra..or "I'm gonna stick with what I've got", never to be heard from again. I think AFTRS have seen that they were producing a generation of filmmakers who were " Script Illiterate" and have now admitted as such and have created a more in depth writing course. I remember being at a screenwriting program in Melbourne, we called up the local filmmaking college and asked if they were interested in some collaboration with some screenwriters.. I remember the eloquent female voice on the other line "No we encourage self expression here..these are very talented people..they know what they're doing, its a very competitive entry program you know, we only take the best" was her reply...a few years later I collaborated on a production with another Director who was at this prestigious filmmaking college around the same time, I told him this story..."We never really studied screenwriting at college..it was more about personal expression, ideas..you know, the nuts and bolts of making a film..it was very competitive..with other students.. its funny now that we're collaborating though"
I looked out the window...two weeks later I walked off the project...Cest le Vie
Post a Comment