How to fix Australian Movies.

Matt Clayfield has kindly linked to my aggregation of the 'what's wrong with the Australia film industry' and offered his own commentary.

He quite rightly understands that my personal opinion: "that [our] that screenplays are lacking and that parochial Nationalism is still, inexplicably, the order of the day when it comes to Australia's national cinema."

Yep, that's pretty much what my opinion is: spend more on scripts and don't be concerned whether those scripts promote Australian culture. Parochialism is rooted in ethnic essentialism and any agenda which pushes any culture is going to suffer the problems of essentalism, namely it reduces that culture to mere exoticism.

{I think the current contemporary culture of the West isn't so much 'recyling' of our own culture as it is exotica-fication [is that a word?] of our past. This is a malady particular to late post-colonial cultures [Does it have to be late post-colonial? Only in the sense that essentialism emerged as a discursive zone in post-colonial discourse... and, I guess, the notion that colonialism was a key component of the cultural identity of the colonial powers. Defining the other defines the self.] We have to evoke to ourselves our own "point of origin" in order to ground our identity. The Castle isn't a real or authentic view of Australia, rather it is an invocation to Australia of an Australia that never was.}

Anyways. I just wish there was a willingness to spend money on developing scripts and to risk spending money on untested writers. The problem with Aurora and other writing schemes is they only want to give money those with 'runs on the board'. But if you can't get funding and development, how can you get runs on the board? Direct commercials and music videos? This is a far more common path in the US than in Australia. The AFC snubs its nose at TVC/MV directors. What about writing a play or novella that gets successful? Great! But assuming you're willing to work in another medium, how do you get money to develop those projects? I suppose, at least, a novel exists as a work per se in the written form. Which is why I've heard a few producers suggest to young writers that they turn their script ideas into novels in order to make it easier [!] for said producer to get funding for the feature adaptation.

The most common path seems to be this.

Film school [AFTRS; VCA] or relevant experience [acting or writing]* --> funding from the FTO --> make a short --> win awards, preferably at the big festivals like the Dendys --> get funding from the AFC for a big-funded short --> make the bigger short --> win awards --> develop a short feature script --> get funding from the AFC for a short-feature --> make short feature --> win awards --> develop a feature script --> funding from the AFC --> make feature --> watch it sink and burn.

On average, this path seems to take 10-20 years to happen. There are certain prodigies who are able to skip part, Cate Shortland went:

AFTRS --> win dendys --> direct secret life of us --> develop somersault by herself --> get somersault into Aurora --> get funding from SBSi.

Whereas Andrew Dominic went:

VCA --> direct music videos and commercials for ages --> develop chopper for 10 fucking years --> get funding from the AFC --> make a great movie --> don't get heard from again.

Anyways. I just wish there was more development money for scripts early on (so the writers, like my flatmate, can actually concentrate on y'know, writing). Cut funding for features but help writers write good scripts. They can then market these scripts to companies like Icon Productions who want to make Australian movies. Foreign investors are more likely to invest in a good script that's been well developed than one that HASN'T been. Develop a writing culture!

Then bitches like me who'd rather not write can pick from an assortment of kickass scripts.... make the best one really well and be shot to superstardom and direct Rush Hour 4.... and never be heard of again but be perfectly content with a $10mil salary. (What a dream!)

Anyhow...

To summarise Matthew's comment, once again to push my own agenda (selective quotation is another name for selection bias):

... And people wonder why I'd much sooner make films for either the international art cinema audience or, even more obscurely, an ideal future audience than for the majority of filmgoers!

The problem with this probabaly elitist position of mine is that only a select handful of people are ever going to consider a purely artistic revival of our national cinema to be much of a revival at all; I, of course, on the other hand, am adamant that such a revival need not be gauged by box office receipts.

I'd be one of those few people, I'm afraid. But neither would I consider purely commercial revival of our national cinema to be a revival. Because it wouldn't be.

I want an Australia film industry which is capable of self-supporting (ha!) mainstream, b-movie and art-house cinema, because I think thats the only way it can happen in a meaningful sense. The success of mainstream cinema will subsidise for the arthouse movies. It already does to an extent. Our post facilities often rely on getting one or two big American features a year to keep them in business - if they're in business all year, then they can pay their staff to do Australian feature work, often when the companies are losing money on the project. Hell, most commercial post houses (or design firms) lose money on music videos in order to attract commercials. There are other post houses which lose money on commercials in order to attract feature work (cough Animal Logic cough).

But what does a vibrant art-cinema scene do for the mainstream? It provides ideas - new ways of looking at the world. These ideas filter into the mainstream. A vibrant b-movie scene provides a stomping ground for people to practice their techniques on low-risk projects, as well as satisfying all the horror/thriller/action/rc junkies.

Australia needs a Frank Capra, a Roger Corman, and a John Cassavettes... [curious that I only cite men. Hmm. Filmmaking is still a very patriarchal art]

That said, the art-house & b-movie scenes - particularly in English speaking countries* - have always remained viable by being international. Their economics are rooted in the long tail. That's part of our problem - only a few of our film makers (Paul Cox, Rolf De Heer and Gillian Armstrong are the only ones that spring to mine) are able to become part of that circle. Perhaps trying to have a self-sustaining art film industry is impossible and that the only way that filmmakers like Matt and my flatmate can make their work is by appealing to the international film circuit of distribution, finance and exhibition. Hell, that's probably true -regardless- of the genre you're working in.

So, where does that leave Australian filmmakers really? Nowhere.... and that's the problem.

Update:Matt wanted a conclusion; whereas I'm always relucatant to give conclusions cause they're too conclusioney. So I've restructured to make this more conclusioney - even if its a trite one - and I've finished finished that last sentence which was left

* The advantage that other 'foreign' cinema, French, Indian, Asian or whatever, is language. The Hong Kong cinema scene was able to flourish because of the language barrier. We don't have that luxury. Unless, of course, we decide to adopt a new national language. I'm thinking blimpese.