15 minutes into the Oscars and Jackman is spectacular. This will be good for the industry.
This is brave and has a weird Australian vibe to it.
Did anyone think this case was curious?
Alex Says:
I think, as an industry, were f—ed. During the last 12 months, Australia has produced NOTHING of any significance. It’s hard to find an Australian movie featured anywhere.
The last local attempt to ’save our industry’ (The Tender Hook) was so bad it didn’t feature in a single theatre. Last week my local video shop got one copy, so I thought I’d check it out. A seven million dollar movie must have something going for it I thought, to attract finance, actors and so on…boy was I wrong. What a pile of crap! I found it quite entertaining, I must admit, as a testimony to just HOW LOW OUR INDUSTRY HAS SUNK. Don’t believe me? Check it out at your local video shop…you’ll be astounded…
Just how savvy are the people who write and produce this crap? How the hell can they raise 7 million dollars on the basis of a script which is not even worthy of a first year student!? And yet all the funding bodies dipped into their coffers – all run of course by the same floozies who now run Screen Australia and are running the Australian film industry into the ground. I smell nepotism.
The industry will need more than a song and dance man to save it…
Alex
nothingbutthestruth Says:
I just love the message it sent that Australian talent is world class.
I think it’s a little biased to single out The Tender Hook when there are a lot of new films and filmmakers emerging out of Australia. It is interesting that the more commercial/marketable flicks are often made with no government funding. I guess it’s a lot easier to make a non commercial flick when no-one is going to lose their house over it.
I’ll rent The Tender Hook and let you know what I think. As a film fanatic, it does say a lot when I don’t look forward to watching many Australian films and therein lies the rub.
Nepotism? A good angle to explore, just need to find someone in the know to give their 2c. Hopefully Screen Australia will give me great access to really understand the processes. Where would I be without my naive optimism?
Thanks for your ongoing contributions, Alex. I’m curious, are you connected with the industry or just an empassioned observer?
Alex Says:
Biased? I don’t think so. I just call a joker a joker. As an empassioned and ‘informed’ observer, it makes my blood boil to witness what is happening to the industry. Screen Australia give you great access??? To prove what a bunch wankers they are? I don’t think so. All you’ll get from them is the party line and a few statistics.
You have taken on a mammoth task. A review of the Australian Film Industry? You should write a CRITIQUE and get government funding to do it. Then present your findings to the Minister and the media. One of the themes you should explore is accountability…
I hope you enjoy The Tender Trap, sometimes a movie can be so BAD it’s interesting…a new sales pitch for Australian movies? What have we got to lose?
Good luck with it all
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Got to agree with you, I’ve taken on a mammoth task. Kind of stumbled into it (I was so sceptical I wasn’t convinced there was a problem with the industry until 6 months into filming). And it was never about the industry, that just ended up being the most interesting and relevant angle.
I went to the video store tonight and picked up a copy of The Tender Hook. Despite this being a store of turnover ($10 for 3 movies overnight, so you grab a sure thing and a couple of maybes) all three copies were available. On the cover was this quote from David Stratton:
Rose Byrne gives a deliciously enigmatic performance as the gangster’s moll.
but not:
DAVID: Just for starters. Margaret?
MARGARET: David, I sometimes don’t believe you.
DAVID: No, but I mean immediately it’s so anachronistic but then, of course, there are…
MARGARET: Yeah. But, no. But the film starts with something that’s completely out of place because, you know, the McHeath character is singing I’m Your Man, the Leonard Cohen song, in the middle of the ring. I’m sorry, that’s decades apart.
DAVID: Well, that’s what I mean. It’s strange. There’s very strange things about this film.
MARGARET: Well, it’s obviously been done deliberately but it’s unsettling, so you think something is not quite right here. So I don’t know what Jonathan Ogilvie wanted to achieve by that unsettling of his audience with the sort of things that don’t…
DAVID: Jarring things.
MARGARET: …don’t match particularly well. But I also think he wasn’t quite sure of what he wanted to make because it falls between two camps this film, and as a result it…
DAVID: It doesn’t quite work as either one.
MARGARET: Yeah.
DAVID: Yeah.
MARGARET: It’s a bit of a shame because there are terrific…
DAVID: But there’s so much talent involved.
MARGARET: There are terrific elements in this.
DAVID: Yeah. Yeah.
MARGARET: I think Rose is fabulous, you know.
DAVID: Terrific, yeah. Yeah.
MARGARET: I mean, I think the performances generally are very impressive.
DAVID: Yeah. Yeah.
MARGARET: We’ve got a lot of talent there but it’s…
DAVID: And it looks good. It looks interesting.
MARGARET: Yeah, but it just doesn’t quite come together the way I think he would have wanted.
They gave it three stars each, which is two on the Schembri scale. And I never rented that sucker and when I do I’ll really want to like it. Just not today.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Watched The Tender Hook today, it was much better than expected. The acting (especially Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne) was great and tech credits were top notch. The script and pacing needed work, but there were some wonderful sequences, with flashes of brilliance. Distracting “quirky” touches, such as colourised archival footage and Weaving’s singing modern songs just didn’t suit the feel of the flick. With a more disciplined hand, this could have been a brilliant film. It’s not the train wreck you might think, merely frustrating considering the 7 million dollar budget and talent on show here.
Alex Says:
I know you don’t want to tread on too many toes. But if you sincerely want to make a positive contribution to the industry your observations need to be on one side of the fence, hopefully with the talent pool, not the bureaucrats, the nepotists and their running dogs. Nor will ’sitting on it’ get you very far. Stratton and co have that job in the bag. It’s their bread and butter.
But you, my friend, must take a stand. To get rid of the dingbats who now control the industry and who are effectively DESTROYING IT, you need to give credit where it is due, and kick butt where it is disserved.
How you can, in all honesty, reach the conclusions you have, indicates that you know little or nothing about film making, or that you don’t want to step on too many toes. The fact is, my friend, this crappy movie, has nothing better going for it than an occasional glimpse at Rose Byrne’s tits!
The seven million dollars could have been better spent supporting the absolutely brilliant young talent that, as we speak, is wasting away on the sidelines, many of whom you have alluded to in this blog. The money they splurged on this rubbish, could have been spent assisting them or re-establishing a new screenwriting program at Screen Australia.
Here’s a more realistic critique:
A fumbling, bumbling mess, The Tender Hook is one of those Australian films that gets you wondering how it was ever made in the first place.
Surely someone positioned along the chain of command during The Tender Hook’s development must have thought the script needed a lot of work before it should be approved for production?
Did that someone speak up, and then get shouted down?
Or did they just shut up and shove the thing sideways for somebody else to deal with?
If there wasn’t a single person who suspected The Tender Hook was destined for dud-ness from the get-go, then our film industry is in much more trouble than many already believe.
The story is set in Sydney at some undetermined point in the 1920s.
A title card informs us it is “the Jazz Age”. Hugo Weaving steps into a boxing ring, grabs a microphone and begins crooning a Leonard Cohen song (I’m Your Man) written and recorded in the 1980s.
It is first of a few minor time-warping touches applied by writer- director Jonathan Ogilvie throughout the film for reasons best known to himself. High-falutin’ types might register such moments as post- modern. Ordinary viewers will already be past-caring.
Anyway, once the leading man has completed his first warble, he begins attempting to persuade us he is a crime lord of some considerable and sinister standing.
Weaving plays McHeath, an English-born psychopath somehow entitled to a cut of every shonky business deal in town.
Whether occasionally brandishing a weapon or issuing orders to some pathetic hired goons, McHeath conveys all the fearsome menace and pure evil of a deregistered accountant.
This is an uncharacteristically inert display by Weaving, but he is not the only actor to miss the required mark here.
A sadly miscast Rose Byrne fares even worse as Iris, the supposed femme fatale of this crime drama.
Byrne looks disarmingly pretty at all times – has she ever not? – but fails to spark any interest in her character whatsoever.
Iris is the opportunistic girlfriend of McHeath, and also has high hopes for a fling with a low-rent boxer named Art (Matthew Le Nevez).
To briefly summarise the simultaneous squalls of boredom and incoherence that soon engulf the screen : there is a listless lovers’ triangle, a shonky get-rich-quick scheme or two, a few half-arsed double-crosses and a lot of quasi-philosophical gab about politics, honour, race and sex.
With so many over-baked ideas and undercooked performances in play here, it’s hard to identify any overtly positive aspect of this underwhelming production.
If pushed, I’d nominate the stylishly distracting cinematography of Geoffrey Simpson, which rather miraculously hides the fact this Sydney-centric affair was filmed entirely in Melbourne. (Herald/Sun)
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Wow, that was one harsh review.
Let’s just say I’m still in the process of getting interviews, so yes, I am wary of treading on any (more) toes. In order to get the full truth I need to speak to people like Jonathan Ogilvie, who I’m sure set out to make a great and profitable movie.
Let’s not forget The Tender Hook was a genre picture, which is a good starting point, rather than the kitchen sink dramas we often make.
I appreciate your critique and passion, Alex. This project has become my life, it permeates my waking hours and even my dreams. I want to do the subject justice and hopefully, even to just one person, make a difference.
Alex Says:
Mate, you are so naieve! Johnny Ogilvie, gets out of it with a small fortune anyway! According to the Australia Writer’s Guild, a minumum of at least 15% of the total budget cost, and that’s just the writer’s fee.
Let’s not forget that he also directed it. $$$. Succeed or fail, a lot of ‘insiders’ made a lot of money. Add to this the tax breaks, and you have quite a lucrative little SCAM…everyone wins, except the Australian public, who paid for it, and the Film Industry, who suffer for it.
You need to inject a little PASSION into your project mate. Get angry! If you try to be all things to all men, you’ll get nowhere. But if you’re sincere, you’ll make a few enemys – and a lot of friends.
Good luck,
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Interesting figures.. by your calculations he pocketed over a million. I really need to find someone who can get some hard statistics for me. Any wannabe researchers reading this?
Naive? Most certainly.
The angry independent filmmaker is such a cliche, I’ll try to avoid that road to propaganda.
Passion? I have that in spades.
I’m not out to make friends or enemies, just out to tell the truth. If you (or anyone else) has advice/tips for me, I’m always listening at contact@nothingbutthestruth.com All correspondence is confidential.
Alex Says:
Don’t take my word for it. Contact the Ausralian Writer’s Guild and ask them for the feature film rates for scriptwriters: PH: 02-92814321. Give them a ring. I’m sure if you told them about your project they’d be more than willing to help.
Here’s what I have. If you check the figures with the Guild you’ll find them to be spot on: $ 7,000,000 = $ 200,000 ( negotiable and the absolute minimum fee ) plus another 2.5% of the total budget up front, plus 5% of producer’s net profit. Add to this the director’s fee ( which would probably be equal to or more ) and you’d be way over the million mark. Add to this all the other perks. Wow…not bad pay for a few months work based on a crappy script.
A few questions you might like to ask Ogilvie( wink wink nudge nudge ):
* Who, on your team, decided the script was ready for funding? On what basis was this decision made?
* When approaching the funding bodies for $, were any assessment reports made on the ‘progress’ of the script? What were their findings/recommendations?
* When you applied for development money ( the big bucks ) what reasons did the funding bodies give for supporting your project?
Usually, development money is only given when the recommendations of the assessors have been met. Legally, that’s the way it’s supposed to go. I mean, why throw good money after a poxy script?
Did I say legally. But of course, if you know someone and they know someone else, you can get around these processes, after all, no one is accountable to anyone!
Who gives a stuff about cliches. The truth is: It’s a racket mate!
All you have to do is to ask the right questions. Do you have balls enough for that?
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Yeah I do. How sure are you of your information?
Daily I repeat the mantra.
“Tell the truth. Tell the truth.”
It gives me strength.
Alex Says:
As a filmmaker and member of the Australian Writer’s Guild I know the proceedure pretty well. But don’t take my word for it. Get the info from the Guilds themselves, then publish it!
AUSTRALIAN DIRECTOR’S GUILD
http://www.adg.org.au
Tel: 02 95557045
Fax: 02 95557086
email: admin@adg.org.au
AUSTRALIAN WRITER’S GUILD
http://www.awg.com.au
Tel: 02 92810554
Fax: 02 92814312
email: admin@awg.com.au
I doubt if Ogilvie, or any other film maker, will tell you any info about the deals they make re funding. But if you have the basic info, you at least have a place to start. What you need to find out is this: how did such a crappy script manage to attract 7 million dollars, especially with all the ‘quality control’ mechanisms we are told are in place?
Keep diggin’………
Good luck
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
I’m on it! Thanks very much for the advice.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Alex, what exactly is the scam?
Filmmakers making good money on films that don’t perform at the box office?
Film bodies that fund average scripts?
Nepotism within the industry?
And how can we go about proving what you claim?
Alex Says:
Film bodies usually fund scripts with potential ( script development money ) to get them to a high standard. Once this is done, to the satisfaction of the assessors, the filmmakers can then apply for money to make their movie. The QUALITY of the script (what else?) is supposed to be the determining factor. My projects have undegone this process several times, and have sometimes been successful and sometimes not.
This is the way it’s supposed to happen. But ask yourself this: why would funding bodies contribute SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to make a movie based on a god awful script any first year film student could have written – and probably done a better job!? It doesn’t make sense. Were there reports written on the progress of the script? Were there assessments done? Who done them? What were their findings/ recommendations? What were the reasons such a vast amount of tax payer’s money was sunk into the project? Did they think the script was outstanding with the potential to make money at the box office? I don’t think so, they’re not that stupid.
A scam is when you can get a crappy script through the funding bodies without adhering to the due processes, and get a big wack of money. There is NO OTHER WAY they could have done it. Yes it’s nepotism ( its not what you know buy who). No, a scam is not filmmakers making good money on films that don’t perform well at the box office. This sometimes happens…
Bobby Says:
I have enjoyed this witty repartee and it will go on forever. Whilst it’s fair that a writer or director get paid for his or her work, THE TENDER HOOK’S small problem is it had no script or direction. The producers didn’t scam the money. They did a sales job on the funding body and if you look at the basics (solid actors without massive box office appeal, period piece, good Dop, etc) and realize that the amount of people in the world (not just Oz) that would know a good script when they see it could fit in the Sri Lankan team bus the Pakistanis shot up the other day. Actually, if you took some of the people that claim to be writers these days and shoot them you actually might have the premise for a quality feature.
With the clarion call of cash going towards “Australian stories” you’re either stuck with the Rolf de Heer festival (which is why David Hicks fled to Afghanistan rather than being forced by his father to watch the boxed set) or stuff like SOMERSAULT or THE BLACK BALLOON which had a beautiful emptiness much like my last girlfriend…though both those films went on longer than that relationship.
So who cares if the government gives $500k or $50m (like the AUSTRALIA rebate)? It is what it is. It just means that a lot of people can make films that have no commercial appeal. A lot of people open restaurants that have no fucking commercial appeal. And Australia has mastered a television industry than makes virtually nothing that appeals to anyone unless they’re carrying an extra chromosome home with them.
Don’t blame the government. Don’t blame the producers—if they were ’scamming’ like the wharfies and unions THE TENDER HOOK would have cost $ Eleventy Billion Dollars. Blame film makers who don’t have a clue. Full stop.
So that’s the beauty of private investment. If you raise the money and make a shit product that has no commercial appeal, you don’t get more money. It’s not an art form then it’s a business. Make art after you’ve made 3 successful films. Or make art and don’t complain that you don’t have a career. Simple?
For the inside take on The Tender Hook, I proudly offer up Mr. Gein’s view:
http://bobbystruth.blogspot.com/2008/09/blender-hook.html
Good night, and good luck!
Alex Says:
Bobby, there is supposed to be a process all applicants go through, whereby the viability of the project (script) is assessed i.e. is it ready ? Is it good enough to go into pre-production/production? Is it commercially viable? How much $ will be required to develop it? How will the money be spent? You can check the application forms of all the major funding bodies if you require further proof.
A certain standard is supposed to be reached before development money is given. But if you know someone who knows someone (an insider) these processes can be avoided altogether…after all, there is no danger of being caught out because no one is accountable.
I suspect the whole Tender Hook funding process was done like this, most of the money divied up between the writer /director and the producers, whilst a minimum amount was actually spent on production costs. You only have to watch The Tender Hook to realize that it’s not a very expensive movie. Most of the historical shots were from old archival footage, apart from that, there was the period costumes and a few old fashion cars. Probably cost less than a couple of million… A major proportion of development money is usually set aside for advertising. But what advertising was done for Tender Hook? I would say, very little, if any. Most cinemas didn’t even feature it!
Al
Bobby Says:
The problem is though that many of the assessors really don’t have a clue about commercial viability. They just don’t have the skill. It’s like asking Mexicans to assess rocket ships. How can people who drive cars from the 50’s work on spaceships from the 00′ies? Because for decades there’s been no real pressure on people to perform in the marketplace, and now the marketplace is absolutely chokkers, and everyone from Snagglepuss, NT with a digital camera and a sandwich and a few bucks can make a film, Aussie films have real competition from everywhere in the world that speak English. Which is every place that counts, basically. Spanish films only compete with Spanish films and Mexican films. French films have no competition. Same with German other than the few Nazi war criminals making docos in fucking Paraguay or someplace. So we (here in Oz) are up against the UK, the USA, and it’s tough. But it’s NOT tough if you set out to make something the majority of people enjoy and get a great script. But everyone in Oz is a director or writer/director… but they forget to get the ‘writer’ part honed because it’s so fucking hard and not glamorous…and none of the schools here do a particularly good or even average job in the screenwriting department. They’re basically a waste of money. Direction is another story—we churn out solid fantastic directors here and tech people.
Marketing the Tender Hook. You’re prob right about that—-and the budget was probably pumped WAY up….but….will we see these people getting a lot more funding? Time will tell.
Alex Says:
I agree about great directors. The problem is, most of them can’t write. There are so many Australian writer/director movies that flop, not because of the direction, but the writing. Look at Kokoda, great direction but a crappy script, no character development, piss weak story line, and a dialogue chock-a-block with jingoistic cliches. In this case the director co-wrote the script with John Lonnie, who ‘teaches’ scriptwriting. Makes you wonder how much they really know.
Al
Alex Says:
Recently had the pleasure of watching The Wave, a German low budget feature film, which was absolutely brilliant.
And I thought to myself, why ain’t young Aussie filmmakers doing this sort of stuff? Be a change from the endless reels of hedonism, gore, horror and car crashes that seem to be in vogue. Surely someone out there has something to say.
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Do you have something to say? How about an interview?
(warning, i have no budget to pay you but it may cost you)
You come to the party, I’ll release the Alex Dimitriades clip.
Bobby Says:
What clip is that? Is it something I wanna see?
nothingbutthestruth Says:
It’s the most embarassing moment of my life in HD. And it’s spectacular.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Reason #23 the industry is not well: people aren’t prepared to be interviewed for this documentary.
I love your informed contribution Alex but at least give us a reason why you won’t talk.
Alex Says:
I prefer to remain anonymous. But I’ll tell you this much: I’m a scriptwriter, with one feature about to go into production and another in development. I don’t think revealing my identity and talking to me would give you any more info than you already have, apart from satisfying your curiousity.
What’s the point of all these vids/interviews. Do you know? Many of them reveal nothing apart from what is already known. You need to think about WHAT you want to say and HOW you want to say it. What’s your angle? Why are you reviewing the industry anyway? Are you just curious? What are your goals? You can’t expect people to come forward with sensitive info if they don’t know where you’re going with it all. I suggest you get clear about these things first…
You could perhaps write an article at the entrance to this blog setting out your reasons, goals and objectives. At the moment, you don’t seem to have any.
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
That’s cool with you remaining anonymous, just interested why. Are you suggesting that speaking out about the issues the industry faces could be detrimental to your career? I’m always keen to get more interviews for the doco and you have some strong opinions, so I was hoping for an on camera interview. It’s certainly not about satisfying my curiousity.
The point of these snippets of interviews and talkback is to get more interviews, encourage debate and make people aware of the project.
I’m not sure I’m qualified to say anything, I’m just the mouthpiece/information sponge. Hopefully I’ll be able to make something coherent that covers all sides of the debate. I stumbled into the topic of the underperforming industry when I started shooting in July 2006, before it was such a hot topic. I just want to make an entertaining and informed documentary, I’m a fish out of water trying to break the industry’s code of silence. I have no grudge or bias, certainly not a disgrunted filmmaker, this is my first attempt at a full length feature.
Where is this going? In the best documentary tradition, I can answer honestly: I don’t know. When it’s finished, I’ll know.
Thanks for your feedback Alex, it’s always thought provoking and you never hold back.
By the way, that youtube link doesn’t work, can you take a look at it?
Alex Says:
Mate, the only way you’ll grap people’s attention is to stop being so ambiguous. To cover all sides of the debate you’ll need to ask questions. But if you’re afraid of hurting someone’s feelings, then forget about it. Your docko will have about as much potency as a limp dick. The Australian Industry is f—-d, and there are good reasons.
Sounds like you plan on working backwards. I’m already beginning to lose interest…
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Fair call, food for thought.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Check out Brett Anstey’s amazing Damned By Dawn trailer
Alex Says:
BOOK YOUR TICKETS EARLY!!!
This sort of movie is not my cup of tea. But the Anstey does it well, has real talent and should be supported. Most writers do not have the luxury of having a production crew on hand and cash to splash. Unfortunately, the f—wits down at Screen Australia ain’t really interested in talent.
Just look at the ‘quality’ stuff they continue to fund. The latest edge of your seat feature played out at our local cinema complex for one whole session before disappearing into ablivion, was called Mary and Max. Another example of the new wave of ‘innovative’ cinema designed, we were told, ‘to win back Australian audiences…’ You’ll need to book early for this one: A simple tale of pen-friendship between two very different people; Mary Dinkle, a chubby lonely eight year old girl living in the suburbs of Melbourne, and Max Horovitz, a 44 year old, severely obese, Jewish man with Aspergers Syndrome living in the chaos of New York.
But if you want something even more ‘innovative’, Screen Australia have recently funded a few more movies that’ll have us all biting our nails down to the bone. One is called ‘Lou’: A young girl finds love through a dangerous game with her Alzheimic grandfather. Another is called I Love You Too: a romantic comedy about a commitment-phobic man-about-town and a gifted new age dwarf who go on a quest to win back the women they love.
Notice a pattern here folks?
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Different strokes for different folks. I think this will rock. As far as I can tell, Anstey lives hand to mouth and has a production crew that worked for peanuts because they believe in Damned By Dawn.
Mary and Max will probably make money and be quite good. The writer/director won an Academy Award for goodness sake. I’m looking forward to seeing this.
Lou is hard to get excited about but I Love You Too could be interesting. Good talent behind it.
With the risk of sounding rude, you really do come off as a disgruntled filmmaker, Alex. I understand you have problems with the scene, why not abandon this scattergun negative approach and hit us with your A material.
What’s wrong with the Australian film industry?
Alex Says:
Why don’t YOU hit us with your A material. So far you’ve hit us with absolutely NOTHING. I’ve hit you with so much material which you’ve done NOTHING about. ‘I’m on to it!’ you told me a couple of posts ago. Really??? Oh yeah, I’m not a dusgruntled film make, I’m a successful one who thinks the present state of the industry is fucking appalling.
Further, I think you’re an ignorant fuckwit, who wouldn’t have enough nouse to examine the state of Nicolle Kidman’s nickers if she pulled them over your silly fence sitting head!
Your collection of videos – apart from the odd one or two – are mostly disgruntled, disjointed, inarticulate grabs. Take the latest one for example. Brett tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
I admire your furious anger.
I’m saving the A material for the finished doco. I really appreciate your input, I’ve learned a lot and do follow up. Unfortunately, most emails I send are either ignored or dismissed. It’s in the doco’s best interests to be as impartial as I can be while still getting interviews. If someone like you who has strong opinions on the industry doesn’t want to get involved it says a lot about how hard it is to get people to talk about the industry. I think Brett’s video makes this point.
My job is to be sceptical. You say you’re a successful filmmaker, that would make you in the minority. So you’re either delusional (the industry is full of them) or you’re being honest. Either outcome is fascinating. Do you really think talking to the documentary would be detrimental to your career?
Although I am an ignorant fuckwit, I’m working hard to become an informed one.
Bobby Says:
I worry that if Alex is such an accomplished film maker he has done so in spite of his spelling capacity in his most recent post. This of course, could be a pesky keyboard, a shortage of time, low priced alcohol, or a myriad of other valid excuses.
It also could be illiteracy.
Why the anonymity? But I like his passion…
bee
Alex Says:
That makes reeeal sense Bobby….dahhh. So you worry about me being an accomplised film maker because of a few typos in my latest post, which you suspect is illiteracy. Pleassseee! Dont insalt my elitrecy!
Alicks
Alex Says:
It’s people like Stoneking who should be hired as assessors for the funding bodies, not the current assortment of political correct, chardonne guzzling floozies who wouldn’t know a good script if it jumped up and bit them on the arse!
The Minister for the Arts ( Peter Garrett ) is not aware of the strangle hold these creeps have on our industry, because no one has challanged their authority and made them accountable for all those poxy decisions they have made and are making which have cost the Australian tax paying public millions and have threatened the careers of our best and brightest.
The struth is: Screen Australia is run by the same bunch of dickheads responsible for the demise of AFC and FFC, with the addition of a few new figureheads to give a deceptive shine to an old coin.
A suggestion: Mr Struth, why don’t you write an open letter to Garrett outlining exactly what you plan to do. God knows there’s enough evidence out there, all that’s required is for someone with balls enough to do a bit of serious digging and put it all together.
Get the Minister’s ear, and you’ll have my public support and the support of many others.
Alex
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Ok. Give me a draft of the letter. I’ll do it.
Alex Says:
You Got it. Give me a few days!
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Great stuff! Thanks Alex.
Alex Says:
Hi Mr Struth, here’s that letter. Feel free to fiddle with it…
Have fun
Al
AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER GARRETT, MINISTER FOR THE ARTS
Dear Peter,
My name is —–. For the past couple of years I’ve been researching and collecting material for a documentary film in which I hope to present an in-depth review of the Australian Film Industry. My blog: ——–.
When I started this project, I had no idea where it would lead, but it seemed that the more filmmakers (actors/producers/scriptwriters/directors) I interviewed, the more I became aware that there was something terribly wrong with the industry.
The government too, no doubt, had also reached this conclusion but by a different route: when it discovered the millions of dollars of tax payer’s money that had been squandered on projects for little or no return, to the point where the very existence of the Australian Film Industry seemed threatened. As a result, a restructuring of the industry was undertaken, by the merger of the major funding bodies into one super bureaucracy: Screen Australia.
Amidst lots of chardonnay guzzling, promises and speeches, the new organization was launched, new department heads hired and filmmakers asked for input before new policy documents were written, amidst much speculation about a new direction, quality control mechanisms and assistance for our emerging young and talented filmmakers. But in the end, all the Australian public and our filmmakers ended up with was an old coin, a little polished on the outside, but inside, made of the same dull metal.
It’s obvious, that Australian filmmakers are among the best and most talented in the world. And yet, ironically, our home industry, by comparison, is now considered amateurish, cheap and non-competitive. Australian films have won few if any international awards during the last decade. Even the Republic of Kazakhstan is today deemed to have a more viable industry. We have become the brunt of many insider jokes, while our best and most talented, starved for recognition and support, pack their bags and head overseas…As for the Australian viewing public, they have deserted us in droves…
So where do the problems lie? The answer simple: it’s the way scripts are assessed and developed and how funding is allocated. If these problems were addressed our industry would recover within a year.
The Charter of SA, tells us that its priorities are designed to choose ‘quality’ projects that will again make us ‘competitive in the marketplace’ and ‘win back Australian audiences’ ( primarily the 12 to 30yr olds ) by making movies on popular themes that have great ‘drawing power’. But a glimpse at the latest batch of feature film projects to receive funding would cast some doubt on these objectives. A couple of examples will suffice (there are more). One is called ‘Lou’: A young girl finds love through a dangerous game with her Alzheimic grandfather. Another is called I Love You Too: a romantic comedy about a commitment-phobic man-about-town and a gifted new age dwarf who go on a quest to win back the woman they love. I suspect most of these movies will not even make it to the big screen and those that do, will flicker for a session or two, then vanish into the dusty backblocks of our local video stores. Some of them may not be that bad, some may even have artistic merit, but I would argue they are not the kind of movies capable of resurrecting our industry at the box office.
A prime example of the ineptitude of our current batch of script assessors – most of who have been drawn from the old guard of the AFC and the FFC – is the recently expensive Australian flop ‘The Tender Hook.’ This film featured at less than 5% of cinema outlets, and then, only for a day or two, its box office returns a little over thirty thousand dollars. Most of the reviews were bad, and deservedly so. You may be asking what all this has to do with script assessors? It has everything to do with them. The shooting script was poorly written, the plot, weak, and the characters underdeveloped. One reviewer compared it to a script written by a first year film student. And yet this script managed to circumvent all the ‘quality control mechanisms’ and attract funding – mostly from the funding bodies – to the tune of seven million dollars!
I would like to know where the money went. Was it on set design? Graphics? Costumes? I think not. Certainly not on script development. If you’ve seen this movie you’ll know it was done on the cheap. A period feature, which drew heavily from old newsreel footage. Apart from that, there were a few costumes and a couple of old cars. Advertising is expensive, but what advertising was done? One day it was there, the next, gone – along with a cool seven million dollars!
Clearly, responsibility rests primarily with the assessors, if they’d done their job; this poor excuse for a movie would never have been made, or made at a time after the script had been substantially improved and developed. How did it slip through? Why did the assessors fail to note its appalling quality? Surely reports were written before the money was dished out. In retrospect, it’s not a very comforting thought when you to realize that these same assessors are now working for Screen Australia. How did they, and how are they still getting away with it? Nepotism? Perhaps…a risk free way to make an easy buck? Quite possible, particularly when you realize, that assessors are not accountable to film makers, their bosses, the government and tax payers for the decisions they make. This is what has caused and continues to cause the demise of the Australian Film Industry. As any basic business course teaches: lack of accountability leads to failed businesses. And yet, at the very heart of one of Australia’s most important industries – accountability is not required!
Screen Australia, has also slammed the door on our young emerging screenwriters, by abolishing the old AFC’s New Screen Writer’s Program, which gave new writers financial and professional development support. Many of our best screenwriters found their way into the industry because of this program. As a commentator pointed out recently, ‘Screen Australia is now a mammoth bureaucracy, who employs more people than the people they are allegedly designed to support…’ He puts the ratio at about five to one.
As a conscientious artist yourself, and now Minister for the Arts, I’m sure you want what is best for the Australian Film Industry. I urge you then to give serious consideration to this letter, by utilizing, in a meaningful way, the great resources at your disposal, to properly investigate its allegations.
Given the extreme importance of the Industry, the enormous amount of taxpayer’s money that goes into it, and the thousands of people the industry directly and indirectly employs, a Royal Commission should be set up to investigate the misappropriation of funds, and by so doing, determine how much money has been lost, and who, ultimately, is responsible.
Any future restructuring should include a strict accountability regime for assessors and their department heads, wherein they need to justify (in open written reports) in terms of professional development (especially script development) and marketing feasibility all the feature film projects they assess. They also need to be suitably qualified for these tasks, which, at present, many are not.
I look forward to your reply,
Respectfully,
Mr Struth.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Struth.
I can only say at this point a massive “thank you”. I’ll need a few days to properly digest this.
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Dear Alex
So should we engage in conversation publicly or privately? We’re asking for accountability, we should lead by example. You can remain anonymous if you like, but are you up for discussing and moving forward with this right here on this blog?
Alex Says:
Couldn’t you at least look into it? Ask questions? Perhaps you could ask what experiences other people have had with the funding bodies? I’m sure you’d get a lot of interesting info. Get a case together, investigate, probe, knock on doors, get proactive.” Seek and ye shall find…” You already have enough leads…
You need an agenda. The vids are interesting, but go nowhere. Its up to you to pull it all together, to give your project focus, direction…if I see you doing that, I’ll take my mask off…
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Your post has really inspired me, and I think it’s dead on (apart from picking on films that have yet to made. You can’t judge a film’s success from it’s synopsys). But I understand your point of audience appeal.
Here’s some of my thoughts:
The current business model is bloated, unfocussed and financially unviable. It all starts here. Major changes and hard decisions need to be made.
Screen Australia, its offshoots and predecessors have created a culture of dependency at odds with a successful film industry.
Although it would upset some filmmakers who have abused the system for many years, many of the current incentives/funding opportunities need to be reinvented or scrapped. For example, you can apply for up to $120,000 for a short animation project under 15 minutes. Of course, any astute businessman would be also keen to invest in your project as a surefire moneymaking venture. The difference is, Screen Australia doesn’t expect repayment in the highly unlikely outcome that the film is profitable.
Every project should begin with a great script. This basic concept is often overlooked.
The only measure to whether a film is successful is ultimately whether it makes it money back. A film’s budget should be in direct correlation with its potential for financial success.
The idea that we should tell Australian stories as a condition of support is unsustainable and ridiculous.
There is next to no accountability for funding decisions. This allows the system to continue the way it does. Easy to access information should include how much was granted, to who, for what and the status of the production. If you look at what information is available, the problems quickly become evident.
We have extraordinary skills for a country of our size. The current system is letting so many of the genuinely talented individuals down.
Due to the digital revolution, the rules of filmmaking have changed and Screen Australia needs to adapt to that.
With the future of manufacturing in Australia slowly dying out, film production could be one of the keystones to the local economy, if it can be reinvented.
…more to come and anyone can feel free to chime in/tell me why I’m an idiot. This is a learning process for me.
Alex Says:
That’s great! The thinking has started…Be good if Stoneking and co could come on board. As well as being one of the best script editor/assessors in the business, he knows a lot about the shortcomings of the industry. Had a discussion with him last year in which we touched on these problems, he’s on our side, and has been quite vocal in the past, which has not stood him in good sted with the funding bodies…
But we are not alone. A quick scan of the net unearthed these potential allies:
Go to ‘STALE INDUSTRY’
http://www.4bc.com.au/Ddrive-archive-08
* Let’s not kid ourselves: if there is no increase in the number of people paying to see Australian movies, we risk squandering 30 years of public investment and any hope of staking a claim among the great national cinemas…
Dr Deb Verhoeven is a senior lecturer in applied communications at RMIT Univer-sity.
* After a brilliant rebirth in the 1970s, it has become steadily worse. Our individual performers conquer all in Hollywood and London, and even Bollywood, but Austra-lian films are consistently and predictably bad…
Greg Sheridan( The Australian )
* “The cinematic experience demands that you have to be working things out on a very subtle level. The definition of film is the state of mind it produces and most of the scripts written in Australia don’t produce that state of mind. They produce the state of mind of being a passive watcher of a TV program.”
Gary Madox ( Professional Film Reviewer )
* In the past decade, the Australian film industry has suffered from the lack of fund-ing, particularly from private investors. There are now many less risky ways of get-ting a return on investment than putting money into poorly written and produced films.
ABC
* Why then do we continue to hear the refrain that increased money for script devel-opment is NOT RELEVANT to the quality of the outcome? A script is the central element of filmmaking and investment in it is vital. Tim Pye, president of the Austra-lian Writers Guild, says: “The notion that increased money (and therefore time) is ir-relevant to the business of writing better scripts is like saying that denying cows grass won’t affect the milk they produce.”
* Craig Pearce (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge!) says the local film industry does not have, and has never had, a serious culture of script development. the milk they produce.”
Over the years, the funding guidelines of government agencies have become increasingly complex, bureaucratic, and prescriptive. They do not meet the requirements, or the ever-changing diversity, of this industry – and they do not create the best possible economic (or cultural) outcomes.
Australian Cinematographer Society
Best
Al
nothingbutthestruth Says:
Alex, do you mind if I make this discussion into a new post? It’s hidden away across various subjects and I think it’s front page material.
I’m still gunning for Schembri, he’s my white whale.
