Feedback

Perhaps oddly, I had never seen a feedback letter from the Commish until a filmmaker I know showed me one they had received. It was feedback for a script that had made the shortlist of 14 for the 1st Writers Initiative but had failed to make the final six scripts chosen for the workshop.

The 1st Writers Initiative is for filmmakers who have not received funding for a feature film. Six scripts are chosen to go to a workshop and one or two of those go into the Commish development process. I may be wrong but I don't think any Writers Initiative scripts have been made or are about to be made into films.

I've been asked not to divulge the script and the filmmaker in question so I can't say verbatim what was written, I will try and give a flavour. The letter thanks the filmmaker for their time and effort and on being shortlisted. Since they were shortlisted they get feedback which is not the case for the other one hundred+ scripts that didn't get that far. After that cheery beginning things do go downhill somewhat. This particular script belongs to a very specific type of genre and the the giver of the feedback (one of the more senior members of the Commish, not an underling) is quick to point out that such genre pieces are prone to failings of the well worn kind. After that things really bottom out when the feedbacker states that this script doesn't do what the genre is supposed to do. Suggesting for instance that for a horror film (it's not a horror film) it isn't at all scary. The coup de grace is made by essentially telling the writer that their story needs passion/drama/stakes/everything else. Then it ends in cheeryland again by wishing them well for the script and their writing in the future.

Hmm. As you can imagine, this particular filmmaker wasn't very encouraged. Does the Commish want them to continue on this script? No one knows. There's no where to go under the 1st Writers Initiative. Rejection for that is basically the end of the line for an idea. So do they keep working on it? The letter says that the reason for the feedback is for the ongoing development of the script. But why continue for no money on an idea that the Commish doesn't seem to like in the first place?

It's ridiculous to let people spend a good deal of time and energy on a project that the Commish will never make. When the filmmaker in question told me the idea I said it sounded fine but the Commish would never make it. It just didn't tick enough of the boxes. But the Commish should be telling filmmakers that, not me.

New Suggestion. Get filmmakers to send in treatments. Select twelve to turn into 1st Drafts. Give those twelve a small amount of money to write that first draft. Select six to go the workshop. Then if they're good enough they go into development.

Don't have one hundred plus angry people feeling like they wasted three months or more of their lives. They might turn into Commish haters...

Talkin bout my generation

Two weeks without the internet is a long time, especially when so much is happening. The ministerial review has just published the submission's it's received on its website. Ant Timpson has made the case for a NZ Film Month. But what I want to focus on today is Matthew Horrocks and his Notes for a New New Zealand Cinema.

Matthew Horrocks worked at the Commission for a few years mostly in development and is now on the other side of the fence as an independent producer. In his Notes he sets out the basis of why filmmaking in NZ isn't as rosy as some people would like you to think it is. There is a lot to be said about his thoughts but what really struck me upon first reading was this paragraph.

"The key cause of the situation in which new filmmakers are not making new films is that in the absence of a clear set of ideas about the types of films we want to make we "new" - though not necessarily particularly young - aspiring feature filmmakers, have for some years now been proving spectacularly unable to generate a healthy supply of film projects that are demanding to be made because we are having real problems finding and developing cinematic stories that just have to be told on film."

I don't think I've ever seen this idea articulated before. To put it simply, most of the ideas that have come to the commission in recent years from filmmakers are crap. That's very harsh. But it should be. I am also part of the problem. I've known a bunch of filmmakers since I moved to Auckland in 1999. We're mostly all in our mid 30's now. Apart from a handful of digital features we have very little to show for our efforts. We know our stuff, have fairly good taste, but have failed to make a mark. Why is this?

Horrocks says "The challenge is cultural. It has arisen because a number of the various streams of ideas to do with identity - national, masculine, feminine, gay and Maori - that have nourished the development of our film culture thus far have to a certain extent run their first course. That they are not being replenished is in turn reflective of the type of crisis of values, meaning, and identity that grips a culture, and a person, that is struggling to make a difficult transition from one era of development into another"

That is pretty heavy stuff and not the intellectual debate you see coming from within the NZ film industry very often. It does have a strong whiff of truth about it. It encapsulates the gnawing feeling that many of us have had watching our films in recent years. Let me use Eagle vs Shark as an example. It's the first film that came to mind so I'm certainly not trying to be dismissive of the work Taika Waititi and his producer Ainsley Gardiner have done. However, that film is basically an American independent quirky romnatic comedy. Now, the problem with doing this is that every film can't be made to stand for the whole. Eagle vs Shark can't represent an argument about the whole NZ film industry. What is interesting is what the films of my generation look like. What they look like is probably other people's films or the filmmaker's own navels.

Horrocks again "I think we need to blast the way we think and talk about films far out beyond the self-referentiality that occurs so often when we discuss films only in relation to other films. Lets discuss films in relation to the true source of all film material - life."

It astounds me that more filmmakers don't look at the newspaper for their next story. There are amazing stories happening all the time in NZ. The feature film idea I'm working on is based on an incident that occured just last year. Why aren't we all mining the news? I think there is more to this than simple laziness.

There is something going on with my generation of filmmakers. Our post-84 liberal minded socially conservative genreation. We don't really remember pre 1984 NZ. We don't remember what it was like to live in an effectively socially democratic country controlled by the state. We don't remember what it was like when pretty much everyone had a job and lived in an egalitarian nation. We don't remember what it was like to have only very limited job prospects (maybe civil service if you went to uni). We don't remember what it was like to not have to lock your door at night. We do have a collective consciousness because when we were young we all watched the same two tv channels and went to see Top Gun and The Goonies at the movies or watched Olly Olson After School. We may have faint memories of the Springbok tour of 1981 when people got pissed off at each other and expressed it. But that might seem like a world away now. Very few of us get really annoyed at anything political. Very few of us are angry about politics in any way although you may be annoyed that (new) Labour ran out of ideas last year and we decided to let the other team have a go again. When I think about the group of filmmakers I know well, they simply don't care about politics. They couldn't care less. What bothers me about that is that it tells me you have absolutely no interest in how we got to our current state of affairs. It tells me that you think that "stuff happens" that you have no control over. That you naturalise the world. That things just are because that's the way they are. You can't tell stories if you don't know how to structure them. It makes sense that you can understand the stories that happen around you if you understand the structures that created them. I can see why you wouldn't notice if a story occurred that raised profound questions about the current state of the country and its people. The problem is - that's the good stuff. The Godfather is just a gangster film if you don't place it in the context of what it tells us about the place of immigration and commerce and violence in the nation building and (maybe) collapse of America.

If you care about all this I suggest you read Notes on a New New Zealand Cinema. The debate about the future of NZ film is happening now.

Shorts vs Low Budget features

Ant Timpson has just made a call on his facebook page for the $1 million spent on the Pod system of short films to go instead to low budget feature films. I've quoted him in full below.

"The NZFC have just done a call out for applications for the Short Film Fund. What this means is that three devolved exec-producer teams will eventually be in control of the final funding to do call outs for scripts, then selecting three to be made with the final talley being nine 35mm short films created.

The cost of making the nine films will be nearly one million dollars.

It's a lot of work (from the call out, development, production and finally release) and the results in the past decade have ranged from utter brilliance to absolute dross.

Now one million dollars sounds like a lot of dough but it's really not a lot in the film biz. But here's something I would like to throw out there.

Since there appears to be very little money in the coffers to produce low budget features, the question must be asked :

Are 9 shorts at nearly $100,000 each better for the NZ film industry than 9 low-fi features budgeted at $100k? Lets break it down.

The pros for shorts :
1. High Quality 35mm end result.
2. Major Interest from the Big 5 fests in NZ shorts of high calibre
3. Tightly controlled and well supported productions
4. Talent and crews paid reasonably.
5. Builds awareness of talent internationally
6. Creates a talent highway.. short - Sundance - fest support - 1st feature invited

The Cons for Shorts
1. Little return on investment
2. Bring zero awareness or growth to NZ film audiences
3. A lot of time, money and energy expended for a 11m result.
4. No real local audience for them.

Now lets look at low fi features.

The pros for making 9 low-fi features
1. Creating excitement amongst new young talent in NZ.
2. Better odds for an overall return on a low investment than shorts
3. More interest from local sponsors/ partners
4. More interest from local broadcasters
5. More interest from local distributors
6. An opportunity for the stars of 48Hours to fasttrack into features
7. An opportunity to have consistent product in front of local audiences
8. Building the next generation of film and filmmakers.

The Cons (which are all true but all can all be remedied wth some work)
1. The Ghost of Kahukura (however a lot was learnt from this early scheme, which was also ahead of its time and there was no digital infrastructure ready)
2. Low fi features usually look like arse
3. No one gets paid well, bloody slave labour!
4. They sometimes don't get finished and run out of money
5. There is no money set aside for P&A (release, prints and advertising)
6. Local audiences supposedly don't want to see that crap

Now I'm not saying I have all the answers but with a major review coming up, I think its time to look towards the future and one area that I see lacking in the NZ film scene are local high energy films aimed at anyone under 30. The cons above do have solutions to them and they're not to hard to facilitate.

There'll be a few bigger budgeted films coming along that will hit a younger demo but surely we also need to create hope and excitement amongst young filmmakers here. Do they really want to see the staircase of 5yr development hell looking at them in the face. A process which I've seen water down and generally suck the life out of 'some' projects like a vampire.

The general argument from many about these low-fi films is "why don't you just go and make it yourself! ". Well people have done this (big kudos) but many are not thinking of the bigger picture. Some make films with no audience in mind and that's fine and dandy but they also don't create much energy or excitement in local filmmaking by doing so. They have no end game planned for anyone to see the film or how its going to get out there. Making something and getting it seen are two completely different targets to hit.

A support structure where these films get help with marketing, release plans and finally onto digital screens is probably more important than finding what films to make, because without a long term vision for consistency and strategy, we're back to square one again in a few years time.

This is just one part of an idea being sent into the review of the NZFC coming up. I'm interested to hear anyones thoughts on all this and whether some think everything is aok as it stands, and there's no need to rock the boat.. ie leave the shorts alone you prick!

There is no question that real talent has come through the shorts programme and now those people are on the international radar. Their eventual first features (5yrs time) maybe be invited by the very fest where their shorts originally played.

However, would those people have been able to pull off something just as remarkable in a feature scenario? Saving 5yrs of time and possibly get the same results?

Or do you have something you'd like to add. Remember all debate is healthy.

There is also a real feeling that we are moving into a new era at the NZFC and that should be cause for some elation.

The one thing I know without any doubt is this...
The talent is out there to do pull off these films.

best
ANT TIMPSON"

It is fantastic that someone with the profile of Ant in NZ has spoken his mind on an issue that affects filmmakers at the lower end of the scale. He makes a lot of good points and some I disagree with.

The pro's of the Pod system of short films outweigh the cons. The 'talent pathway' that he mentions is probably their most successful aspect. It is a great way to get into a big film festival. NZ makes high budget short films that often get into A List Film Festivals. Those filmmakers then have a much wider door to get their features into same festival. Basically, I think targeting the Pod system to be replaced by a Low Budget Feature one is a bad idea. The Pod system works. Let's not break it.

The low budget feature idea is one I'm very interested in. When I was in NZ in March I canvassed a few people about the idea of setting up a low budget feature studio. The idea would be that you make about ten films a year. You would buy most of the equipment you needed initially (e.g. using Red technology) thereby avoiding nasty hire fees. The biggest point was that we would seek out private investment. Investors would put in money for a years slate of films. Hopefully, after theatrical, dvd and ancillary the investor would make money. It's a lot more complicated than that but the idea would be that an institution would be set up outside the Commission to make films that the Commission couldn't make. If you want to make low budget features they must have a strong support structure, from preproduction through to distribution. Filmmakers can create this. They don't need the Commission to tell them to do it and ask them to report back every five minutes.

There's a lot more to say about this. The deadline for submissions to the Commission review are due in a few days. I'm going to get writing about that and report back when I'm finished.

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.

Films!

I thought I better point out that the Film Commission does actually make films and some very good ones. Here are links to the trailers for Niki Caro's first film since Whale Rider - The Vintner's Luck and Under The Mountain which pretty much every child of my generation saw the televised version of back in the early 80's. Under The Mountain looks okay although something feels missing. The director is Jonathan King of Black Sheep fame. It will be interesting to see how this mixture of science fiction and kiwi gothic plays to a modern audience. I'm a fan of Niki Caro but I fear the trailer for The Vintner's Luck puts it in Euro-pudding Perfume territory.

There is also a reel of the short films screening in this years NZ Film Festival. It's a great reel and makes me desperately want to see these films, if only to see what my contemporaries are up to.

I'm Sorry Mr Jackson

Followers of the New Zealand film industry may recognise the title of this blog as an ever so slight dig at the organisation that runs film in that country. NZ film is essentially bipolar. The New Zealand Film Commission is a state funded ‘quango’ type organisation that effectively funds the majority of filmmaking in NZ. The other half of the industry is a chap called Peter Jackson. The Commission runs on the relative smell of an oily rag. It expects to make around 4-5 feature films per year mostly at either $2million or the $10million depending on the project. Peter Jackson runs a movie making empire out of Wellington and is on a par with Steven Spielberg and James Cameron. In any bipolar system you expect tensions, but the Commission and Jackson have traditionally had fairly demarcated lines of control and influence. The Commission cannot expect to compete with Hollywood blockbusters and for the most part does not try to. Peter Jackson makes Hollywood blockbusters. The Commission does control the purse strings to everyone else that wants to make films in NZ and therefore has enormous influence. Jackson is influential on a world scale and the concerns of our local filmmakers would seem to be insignificant to him. There is however a problem. Jackson and the Commission have a history and that history is likely to now come back and bite the Commission squarely on the bum.

I don’t have the time to go into the detailed story here. The history of Jackson and the Commission is well documented. Essentially Jackson was a no-budget filmmaker who made three cheap horror films before having his first mainstream hit with Heavenly Creatures. From early on though Jackson and the Commission didn’t see eye to eye. He was lucky that Jim Booth an exec at the Commish liked him and his films and came on board as his producer. But Jackson quickly became too big for the Commission to handle. He was their darling after Heavenly Creatures. It’s the perfect Commission film. A New Zealand true story set in the 1950’s with the added ‘cinema of unease’ factor and done in style on a low budget. Heavenly Creatures won awards and audiences around the world. The problem was that that wasn’t really where Jackson was ‘at’. The next film he made was The Frighteners a Hollywood studio film that tanked at the box office. In hindsight The Frighteners can be viewed as Jackson’s transitional film to blockbusterism. It’s easy to imagine the head shaking the film must have caused at Commission HQ however. “He was doing so well!” you can imagine them saying in pity. It’s at this time that Jackson starts letting rip at the Commission, pillaring them in an article published in Metro magazine. Jackson has had a few run in’s with the Commission since then but both parties have kept a slight distance, until now.

The new Minister for Arts and Culture is Christopher Finlayson and he has charged Peter Jackson with the task of running a ministerial review of the Commission. Finlayson had been making noises about the Commission before National won the election so this review isn’t a surprise but getting Jackson on board to lead the review is a stunning coup and speaks volumes about how serious this could be for the Commission. Jackson, you would expect, is a very busy man so to lend his time to this review must mean he wants to reshape the landscape of NZ film. I don’t think I would want to be a ‘producer’ who has been living off development cash for the last few years in this new environment.

My personal history with the Commission is a mixed one. I’ve never been given direct funding from them. The one time I actually asked for money was when I asked for $500 to help with my trip to the Berlinale Talent Campus. I wrote to Ruth Harley personally but no dice. One of the reasons given for not helping me was that they hadn’t given me money before. Right.

I have been a benefactor of the Commission indirectly attending workshops and seminars funded through them. I am grateful for that support. I also recognise that the Commission has issues. The Commission basically operates by having a large number of films and producers in development at any one time. I tried counting them up and got to nearly 80 projects. That is an extraordinary number for a small country. It means that a lot of people can say that they have a project in development and feel that they are close to making a feature film. The maths tells you otherwise. 4-5 films produced per year means that most of those films in development will never see a movie theatre. Because you have 80 films in development you need a number of people to stay on top of all that work and that is where most of the Commission’s work seems to go.

The Commission is continually trying to find its place in the world. It doesn’t have a remit that states it has to make money but it does try to balance art house films with commercial fare in the hope of balancing plaudits and an audience. The problem is how to express this message to filmmakers. The Commission can’t conjure up great scripts from thin air. It has to work with what is put in front of them. What the Commission does like to do is to suggest what type of films it may be more interested in making. This is almost always a recipe for disaster. In the mid 90’s came a desire to create low budget quirky comedies. This was followed by a penchant for horror films in the 2000’s. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when the Commission party to Cannes returned last year to impart the knowledge in a newsletter that for some reason interesting true stories seemed to be in vogue. It was as if they thought local filmmakers didn’t have access to the Internet.

The point of this is that the Commission has been a consistently reactive organisation and in the film world that isn’t a great place to be. Mr Jackson may have his own views on the matter and his will count.