Short film funding etc.

Following up on a number of comments regarding 'cinemateque d'youf which was originally posted in response to a blog by Matthew Clayfield.

The problem is actually that the funding pool is just too small. It's not that easy to make a film on $30,000, unless everyone works for days (often weeks) for free. This has happened on just about every YFF film I know about.

That is true. But there are a few reasons why this is an issue when, imnsho, it shouldn't be.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the YFF funding inexperienced creative-teams. I realise that is part of its mission, but there is a difference between being totally green and being inexperienced. I consider myself inexperienced, but I'm certainly not green. For an editor like yourself, the problem with green directors is that they often simply don't have the craft or experience to tell a screen story well. Regardless of the script's quality, its not unusual to spend a long time in editorial trying to fix story problems. I don't have a problem with that: fixing story problems is how directors learn visual storytelling. The problem is when they're relying on professional editors to cut their material and have seriously miscalculated how long it'll take to edit.

Secondly, inexperience also means its more difficult to push the dollars further. I certainly think that I'm in a far better position to get serious production value out of $30,000 than I was a few years ago. I'm certainly not alone with this. Experience teaches one how to be conservative and economic with the money. Directors learn what they need to tell their story based on experience rather than a few DVD commentaries and books like 'Movie making at used car prices' (or whatever its called).

Thirdly, because of the 'drying up' of the feature film and advertising industries coupled with the flood of wannabe filmmakers, there are far more people competing for work. Whereas YFF should be the perfect vehicle for young editors to gain some 'big' experience and step up into professional filmmaking, you now have professional editors like Ken Sallows (who is a feature editor) cutting shorts. Sure, I think he's cutting an AFC short rather than YFF, but its a matter of scale, not difference. Professionals like yourself end up cutting YFF projects not because you need the experience per se, but because you (a) need some money and (b) need to keep on cutting to stay in the game.

This is why I think a multi-tiered scheme would work.

You have a very low funding level, $5Kish, which funds 'green' directors and producers. They can cut their teeth on very low budget projects and learn the basic skills. They won't be able to pay anyone, but peopple shouldn't be expecting to get paid either.

You then have a middle brow level, $10-15k ish, which funds relatively experienced teams. This is a way for them to 'step up' and shoot on S16 or HD.... yes, there's no money, but by emphasising craft they can result (we hope) in less overages w/r/t volunteer labour.

You then have the upper-middle level, $30kish, again for experienced teams. There mightn' tbe heaps of money, but there is some.

Then you have the top level, like the AFC, which does the $100-200K projects and which people can actually get paid.

I mean, I don't *want* $30,000 for maggots. If they gave me $10K, I'd be estatic and I'm sure I could do more with that money than most can with $30k.

Unfortunately, we need to think of alternate ways to raise money, or to reassess the way we tell our stories. What I mean is, to continue to make it viable, we have to be aware of our budget constraints. Not that I like the idea that art should be defined by cost.

Art shouldn't be defined by cost; but filmmaking is *very* expensive as an art form. A $30,000 grant could be given to a painter (for example) and they could live on that for a year making awesome paintins which are then put in public. More people would see those paintings than would see YFF films I would suspect.

I think its hard to raise money for shorts, simply because there is no market for them really. Thins like Red vs Blue are exceptions, not the rule. This is particularly true with live action, which has huge direct costs - rather than animation, which is only free if you value your time a huge fat zero.

... but I certainly agree about funding for features. A stronger private investment culture would help our industry. It would force the audience to be considered. At the very least, we need to make films which people *want to see* - and they shouldn't be defined by very 1970s nationalist parochial agendas. It reminds me of an article I read in the Herald about the death of concert music since the 1950s. Basically the thrust of the article was that concert music has died because its lost relevance - its written by composers for other composers and to satisfy the gatekeepers of concert music... y'know, those who sneer at Howard Shore and John Williams even though both of those composers have done more for symphonic concerts than anyone since, I dunno, Ravel?

So, what's the solution? I don't really know, but we have to think of ways to keep telling our stories, and yet still be able to pay the rent. That's the only realistic path, otherwise it's just not sustainable.

I agree. I thinking making sure our filmmakers are solid in their craft would be a good idea. Accountability is a Good Thing. Also, recognising that y'know, Music Videos and TVCs are a good way for filmmakers (DoPs, Directors, Producers, etc.) to learn their craft. I believe Andrew Lanclaster was getting heaps of shit from the AFC while making 'In Search of Mike' because he directs music videos - they didn't think he could direct drama. Now, I would suspect if he seemed to be a 'real' artist and didn't direct anything, they wouldn't care as much. Of course, that needs to compare to Joss Whendon's experience in the US where they wouldn't trust him to direct - despite him being a great writer - because he hadn't done any music videos. At least he could teach himself via making a little TV show called BUffy.

Marsey writes:

This sort of argument is usually dismissed as crass commercialism, pandering to the LCD, blah blah blah. More often than not, such complaints are really special pleading and an avoidance of the reality that someone, somewhere, somehow is paying for the (alleged) art.


Again, I agree with you. We've had this discussion a number of times. However, YFF is a funding scheme for short films... and this is the issue. By themselves, shorts aren't much of a market, and they're expensive to produce. However, the issue is how do you train the next generation of filmmakers so they're good enough to not squander any money they receive (from the AFC and/or private investment)?

Not train them at all? Make them fight for it?

Do you think either of those things would work? The problem is that only three film industries survive without government funding: Hollywood, Bollywood, and the HK industry. The latter two have a distinct advantage from other smaller industries: they have the barrier of language protecting large tracts of population from hollywoodisation.... and then real issue becomes whether cinema, and art generally, pays any role in creating national character and whether it should be funded inspite of its economic inefficiencies. Of course, the same could be send of all our government-subsidised industries - but people like picking on art, rather than say sport, or our poor struggling farmers. I mean, how much do we spend on the AIS each year? Yet when people like Thorpie earn the big bucks, do they have to pay it back? No. Yet, if I got into the school, I'd at least have to contribute SOMETHING to my education.

Anyways, whatever, this is long and I need to check that this DVD is finally muxing properly. Bring on the new wave.