Comments on: Australian cultural policy; and whatever happened to the 2020 summit?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:45:02 +0000

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.

By: Ben Eltham

Ben Eltham — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:07:04 +0000

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.

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:29:59 +0000

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.

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:21:49 +0000

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.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:29:47 +0000

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.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:24:53 +0000

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.

By: Ben Eltham

Ben Eltham — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:21:15 +0000

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.

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:41:46 +0000

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.

By: Ben Eltham

Ben Eltham — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:53:46 +0000

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.

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:36:36 +0000

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.