Thursday 23 July 2009

Can we have filmmakers on the Fonterra Board please?

The Film Commission has three new board members: Patsy Reddy (who is the new Chair), Rhiannon Evans, and Charles Finny. None of them are what you would call 'film people'. They are for lack of a better term 'business people'. The Film Commission is run by the Government and therefore can have whoever they want on the board, but does it have to be mostly business people? The Board doesn't just meet every few months to check that the Commission hasn't fallen into a financial black hole, they actually make the final decisions on what gets made. Would you really want a filmmaker making the decision about what amount dairy farmers get back on their milk solids? Why do people who know very little about the process of making a film get to decide what gets made?

The partial answer of course is that filmmaking is an art form and a business. The government thinks filmmakers can't be trusted to make informed choices about what will succeed in the marketplace. The odd thing about this idea is that theoretically it's producers who should understand these things. I know nothing about the dairy industry but I do know quite a lot about the film industry business because I've read things like Variety. Do the new Board members read Variety? Do they know how the market at Cannes works? Producers should know these things but the role of the producer is neutered by the structure of the industry in NZ. Producers and directors/writers are encouraged to link up to bring projects to the Commission for development. They may receive development money which is usually equally split between the producer and director/writer. This process continues until the Board decides to give you production financing. The problem then is that producers don't have to do very much. They simply get hold of a project, get development money, repeat. I'm not saying that producers don't do a lot of creative work, it just seems that's what they mostly do. There's no incentive to find alternative means of funding. Either the Commission funds the project or doesn't. Next.

This seems to be the issue Peter Jackson has the most problem with. The Commission has recognised the issue itself and spends money sending Producers overseas to learn about the international market. It also looked at devolving some money the way of producers so they could develop their won slates of projects. The issue with both of these ideas is that they don't alter the current paradigm. In the end, the Commission is who funds your film.

I'm thinking a lot about these ideas at the moment and I want to send them to the review the Ministry of Culture and Heritage is implementing. The deadline is 31st July. When I get something together I'll also post here.

Finally I want to mention a blog I've discovered about women's filmmaking in NZ. It looks great. Great title too, Wellywood Woman.

No comments:

Post a Comment