I wrote in an earlier post about the “summer of culture” feature at New Matilda. Ben Eltham has now wrapped up “the state of the cultural nation” with a thoughtful essay integrating the various pieces with some broader thoughts on cultural policy and culture and creativity in Australia.
As Eltham notes, mine has been one of the voices seeking to reframe the cultural policy debate. Although he and I wouldn’t agree on everything, we’re certainly coming from the same space. It’s very difficult to judge whether what is now becoming quite a well known critique is having much impact on government – in the funding bodies, and in Peter Garrett’s office.
Incidentally, I wonder what happened to the promise that the government would respond to the 2020 summit by the end of last year? If anything was going to indicate whether or not the Rudd government actually had some sort of integrated stance on cultural policy, it would have been the response to the Creative Australia stream report. But, intriguingly, the website seems to have rewritten history – a response is now promised “in the New Year”. There’s also not much sign of the webpage being used to facilitate further “submission of new ideas”. While I was among the (guarded) cynics at the time the 2020 summit was held, I nevertheless think it’s essential to continue to highlight the fact that it really will have been a stunt if its deliberations and recommendations are allowed to disappear. Something more definite in terms of a date by which the government would respond, and an opportunity to make submissions on the report might be starters. We’ll see.
But it may also be time for those concerned with cultural policy and working within the creative industries to take the iniative and begin to formulate concrete proposals in specific policy domains. I think that accords well both with the spirit of the observation that a lot of creative innovation happens from the bottom up and with the likelihood that we’re not going to see any big picture thinking from the present government.
I’m shocked, surely 2020 wasn’t a stunt?
To help put in perspective how highly KR is likely to prioritise cultural policy and the arts, one of his favourite magazines in the Spectator….
One hopes he doesn’t buy it for the Tom Switzer and Christian Kerr articles
I think The Chaser’s mob summed it up well.
.
2020 was in part a commitment to continue middle-class welfare. The arts community agrees to design and propose a viable, rational policy for cultural production in this country. And the government assured us all of the commitment to defer implementation of the policy to a series of reviews, committees and commissions resulting in a big fat wad of paper ink-heavy with a massive collection of fiv syllable words, meaningless constructions and sentences that proceed for seventeen pages before hitting a comma.
.
It will then be secured in the third drawer of a desk located near the heating ducts of the Department of Methane whilst the govt considers trivial matters like how to cough up the dole money for everyone now that the economy’s fallen thru the floor and Kevvie’s already emptied the Oz piggy-bank so that Toyota makes cars in Dubbo.
.
And of course a great chance for the political and cultural elites to buddy up together.
.
Some of these elites are alright you know. They’re in Hollywood filums! Hollywood mate, not the crap they make ‘ere.
.
So we’ll get actors with half-baked understandings of complex issues being wooed and charmed by technocratic charlatans resulting in them advocating that you take time off from your bong n’ X-box sessions to vote for them for vague idealistic reasons that have nothing to do with the laws they actually write.
.
Just like America. Grouse!
A good articles. But anyone who quotes Jum Schembri as someone who’s knowledgeable about film loses major points. He’s a major embarrassment. For instance, there’s this idea that ‘Australia’ has flopped at the box office. This is promulgated by both Robert Miller at Crikey and by Schembri. It’s an idea that has been successfully debunked by David Tiley at Screenhub. I dont think I can link to it becasue it’s subscription only.
It’s an idea that has been successfully debunked by David Tiley at Screenhub.
.
Do you have a link for that.
It irks me that in most circles within Australia the concept of “culture” and “art and creative industries” are conflated so that culture appears to be about paintings and dancing and music. The reason that this irks me is that culture is so much broader than these things. We all have a culture, it makes us who we are and informs what we think. Nothing terribly irksome so far I hear you saying. No the irk comes because we hide our culture (including things like the ideas that work is good for you, material advancement is a sign of success) to the point that it never really gets talked about. The main cultural parameters of what constitutes the good lifr have been decided and are not to be questioned (and note this is very different to people like Clive Hamilton who might argue for different ways of consuming but does not question the culural bedrock on which our lives sit). This leaves us having discussions about “culture” that relate to the piddling periphery of art and music, not the real cultural stuff. To bring the irk fully into the light it needs to be compared with how quickly and easily we talk about “others” culture- be they Islamic, aboriginal or Sudanese. If culture is just about music and art, why would we worry so much about them?
Sorry Adrien, can’t find it. The gist of the article is that that reports of its box office failure came before it opened in Europe where it’s doing very well. This is also pattern that worked for ‘Moulin Rouge’.
Fine, just a note, I’m not defending Jim Schembri. But as he is at the centre of the current film industry controversy, he needs to be taken seriously if only for the reason that he encourages so much vitriol.
>
Since quoting Schembri I’ve had a few bloggers make various claims that Schembri doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which puzzles me. As a full-time critic, he probably sees more Australian films than nearly anyone else in the country. Doesn’t this in itself qualify as an important knowledge base?
Ben, it’s his general knowledge across the board about film history and theory which I question. I’ll compare him to people like Adrian Martin or Barbara Creed, who were the Age reviewers for years. They publish books and refereed articles, teach in universities, sit on international film festival juries. They’re respected internationally at a high level. Schembri isn’t. For me, it isn’t a question of whether he likes Oz films or not. Adrian Martin would also have some very harsh things to say about them as well. It’s to do with the depth of his knowledge and the strength and consistency of his critical opinions.
Fine, while the credentials of Adrian Martin and Barbara Creed are beyond reproach, I’m not sure if I agree with you that sitting on film festival juries, teaching in universities and publishing peer-reviewed articles makes you a good critic.
>
let me put this way – I worked as a critic for The Courier-Mail many years. Whenever someone disagreed with one of my reviews, they generally attacked my training, expertise and “depth of knowledge” rather than trying to engage with me on the merits of the work in question (which sometimes they hadn’t even seen).
>
Schembri is undoubtedly a popularist who enjoys things like strong storylines and faithfulness to genre, rather than the more esoteric merits of cinemtography and mise-en-scene that academic film criticism sometimes valorises. Does this mean he lacks a depth of knowledge or consistent critical opinions? I think that’s open to debate. But attendence on jury panels, teaching and publishing at universities and the always-nebulous “international recognition” don’t tell us whether he’s a good critic or not. Nor does a lack of these credentials mean an essayist “loses points” for quoting from his writing.
Again Ben, it’s not about whether I agree with Adrian Martin etc. or not. I think I’d probably disagree with him more often than not, acually. I think you’re making a false dichotomy between popular critics who value genre and more esoteric critics who value mise-en-scene etc. One of Barbara Creed’s main interest is in horror films for instance and Adrian Martin’s is teen comedies, both genres. They’re certainly not ‘art-house’ addicts.
There’s nothing ‘nebulous’ about international recognition either. If the BFI commissions a book from you, that actually means something in terms of how your writing and critical faculties are regarded in the wider world. ‘Depth of knowledge’ in film criticism does matter. It isn’t all subjective. International peer recognition is one measure that you actually know what you’re talking about.
There’s often a real lack of nuance and complexity with Schembri. He tends to go for the glib line above everything else. At the moment, I think he’s more interested in making a name for himself as the scourge of Australian filmmaking, rather than actually dissecting the problems. And it works. We’re talking about him here. He’s the critic you quoted extensively in your article. Yet there are other full time film critics that you could’ve talked to who see as many Australian films as he does.
I’d also be really interested in the views of the few producers/directors who have succeeded in long term Australian careers. Rolf de Heer for instance. What is he doing right? What does he think the film industry should be doing? I’m glad you linked to Robert Connolly, as he’s another producer/director who’s sustained a long term career. I think Schembri’s stock line that Australian films aren’t doing well because they’re boring and don’t connect with audiences is true in a way, but it doesn’t tell us a lot. It doesn’t give us any clues as to why that might be the case. Again, the stock answer tends to be – blame the bureaucracy. But that’s terribly simplistic. Films get made in a complex environment of national and international agendas, private and public money etc. How does that all work? How does someone like de Heer make it work for him? I’ve got some ideas, but sadly no answers.
Lastly, I’m sorry about the ‘losing points’ line. It wasn’t the smartest nicest or even most accurate thing for me to say. I certainly wasn’t trying to have a go at you, or question your credentials.
Nah, all good. Again, I’m not defending Schembri – merely pointing out his role in igniting the current debate. And credentialism annoys me: while it’s great that Adrian Martin is internationally respected, I don;t like a lot of his reviews either.
>
Rolf De Heer I think is a good example of the opportunities but also the problems associated with working in a small market: his toughness and persistence is amazing, but even so his films are typically seen by only a small percentage of film-goers.
>
Blame the bureaucrats? Sure, sounds easy – but maybe the evidence suggests there’s something to it. One of the themes of my essay is the general inability of cultural institutions across artforms to adapt to the rapidly changing cultural industries. The Australian screen bodies are certianly far less accountable for their decisions than comparable private-sector individuals – after all, the FFC would have gone broke many times over given its dismal 20-year record in backing films with supposedly “commercial” prospects. If you’ve spent nearly $2 billion, and returned only roughly $200 million, as the AFR reported of the FFC earlier this year, maybe it’s time to take a look at why.
Ben Eltham – I worked as a critic for The Courier-Mail many years.
.
Geez there was a guy used to work there for years and years. Way behind the times. When A Bout De Souffe was brought out again he wrote this review saying that he had no idea why it was so famous and made the assertion that it was inept because there were some obvious errors of continuity. Um…
.
Can’t remember his name.
.
Remember him tho’. When I did filum write-ups he was still working. He rarely sat thru an entire film! Seriously!!! I thought that was very poor form. Tempting considering all the schlock, but poor form.
.
Film reviews. Sounds like a good gig but truly ye have to see a lot of shite. And even when it’s not crap can be taxing. 9am Mondays is not good for Bad Boy Bubby.
And now for something completely different: an excerpt from the greatest arthouse film ever followed by comments from the greatest critic of all time.
.
Je suis un revolutionaire; the cabbage represents the capitalist system which will destroy us all.
But the bureaucracies are only one player amongst many. Before you could get investment from the FFC you needed both a local distributor and an international sales agent to invest up front. You had to go to the FFC with about 40% of your budget in place. So, if the films are bad and/or didn’t make money, what does that say about the judgement of the private sector? Certainly, the private sector is more accountable, but they also make very bad decisions. The FFC couldn’t make a decision until the private sector did first. This continues with ScreenOz, if you look at the guidelines. The difference now is that the onus for development has shifted away from the bureaucracy and now sits with producers. Will the results be any matter? We’ll see.
Sorry, I meant will the results be any better? So, the government has had a look at why and made changes. Basically, they decided that development money was being spread too thinly, too many inexperienced people were receiving it and there weren’t opportunities to grow companies that could become self-sufficient. There’ll be less direct government financing over the years and hopefully more investment money coming in via the Producer’s Offset, which will allow producers to have more equity in their films. I think it’s a mixed bag. It’s not good for new players and it’s not good for writers and directors as their terms of trade have become even weaker. Someone like Rolf de Heer could do very well out of it, which is the upside.
Fine I agree, the old FFC paradigm relied on distribution deals being secured first before public funding could be accessed. So in that sense you can’t blame the bureaucrats reflexively for their lack of commercial acumen. But, by the same token, let’s not kid ourselves that this was some kind of blind process which merely topped up done deals initiated by the private sector. Take documentaries for instance, where the public broadcasters SBS and ABC represent most of the market. And there’s also the sense in which development funding, whchi was often the first step to get a project to market in order to qualify for commercialisation funding, was predicated on the sorts of projects the AFC and state film bodies were prepared to fund. It’s a complex mixed economy and I’m not saying the market will necessarily make better decisions.
>
Even so, the new paradigm at Screen Australia is a real concern. I also share your thoughts about the prospects for new talent in an industry clearly crying out for it.
Before you could get investment from the FFC you needed both a local distributor and an international sales agent to invest up front.
.
So once you’ve got that why go to the FFC? What prevents you from shopping ’round the world? I’m just curious.