Australian Filmmaking: Entertainment or Cultural Propaganda?

Australia produced the world's first feature film in 1906 about the Kelly gang. We then had a mini boom in 'bushranger' films. This ended when the government banned production of all bushranger films due to a perceived 'civil unrest' they were causing. The Australian film industry died as a result. Soon after this, the government began funding films themselves and today almost every Australian feature film is government-funded.

A century later and the government has not relinquished control of the film industry. It has even extended its influence by funding absolutely every aspect of the filmmaking sector including film festivals, film schools, film publications, film distributors, film festival junkets and film industry awards. You name it – they fund it.

Screen Australia, the central government filmmaker, says it “will promote an environment where… screen content contributes positively to the cultural fabric of Australian society”. Screen Australia Charter of Operations 2010-2011

Simon Crean, Minister for the Arts, said, “The more we invest in those sorts of things (the arts), the better citizenry we develop”. Annual government arts spending is in the billions.

One of Screen Australia’s stated priorities is to invest in films that are “culturally relevant”. This means the government is responsible for determining which elements of the Australian culture are relevant and which elements of our rich and diverse culture are irrelevant.

Screen Australia’s Charter of Operations does not mention the word ‘entertainment’ once. It views films as vehicles for cultural propaganda. The government would be well advised to heed the words of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who said, “We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth”.

The brand ‘Australian Film’ is tarnished. It has earned the reputation as being non-commercial and unentertaining, and filmmaking has come to be viewed as a type of government cause, rather than the highly profitable business it can be. This makes it more difficult for all Australian filmmakers to raise independent finance, which makes filmmakers more dependent on government support. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.

Filmmakers need to break away from the government system and create work that is entertainment-driven. The trouble is, independent filmmakers face an almost impossible task of competing with the government. The government has millions to spend on production and marketing so it can easily buy an audience and squeeze the independents out.

Independent filmmaking is the lifeblood of any film industry and currently Australia’s independent film sector is all but non-existent. This is a shameful blight on the government system, and a dire state of affairs for the industry as a whole.

The government simply does not need the power to pick and choose which films are produced. If any government support can be justified, tax breaks are the best form because they allow creative control to remain in the hands of filmmakers.

But the ideal scenario is where audiences pay filmmakers directly for their work, rather than paying for films via the government in the form of taxation. This way it is the people who decide which types of films are made and not the government, and we all have a few more dollars in our pockets to go to the movies.

Currently filmmakers don’t need to connect with audiences. They make most of their money from the front end—the budget, and they’re not accountable to the unwitting taxpayers who foot the bill. As a result, Australian filmmaking is running at a huge financial loss. This is unsustainable and if we allow it to continue, Australia’s share of the box office will continue to shrink.

Filmmaking is a multi-billion dollar industry that can provide jobs, growth and exports; however, much of our best filmmaking talent leaves Australia to make films overseas and like so many other Australian resources, they are sold back to us as finished products.

Australia has a large enough economy to support a commercially viable, self-sufficient film industry. It also has the talent, infrastructure, climate, geography and language that make it the ideal filmmaking nation. We’re probably the only country in the world with real competitive advantages over Hollywood.

Independent filmmakers can help to revive our industry, and rebuild it from the bottom up. But they need our help, which is why this writer is launching an entirely new non-government filmmaking initiative.

By creating a new platform, solely for independents, we hope to level the playing field so that independents can compete with the government. We aim to lure private sector investment back to the film business by showing that films really can make a profit. The key is to cut costs to the bone and allow creativity to shine, like only independent filmmaking can.

Some of the world’s most profitable films have had extremely low budgets. Films like Paranormal Activity, Clerks, and Open Water are among them. Digital technology has paved the way for micro-budget filmmaking. There’s no excuse for Australia not to have a thriving self-sufficient commercial film industry.

Films should be made by the people, for the people; and be financed by ticket-sales, not taxation. If this sounds like the type of film industry you would like to see, please join us. 

Jason Kent is an independent filmmaker who hopes to encourage other independent filmmakers to stay true to their vision and remain purely independent.

Comments

[Andy Semple]

1.

Good Post Jason.
Everyone knows the vast majority of movies made here in Australia are crap. That’s what we get when most films are made on massive tax payer subsidy. Sure there are some gems. I liked Red Dog and was glad to see it win best movie.

I hope Pure Independent Pictures does well. Heaven knows we need to offer the paying punter some decent movies to watch.

[Darren Ashton]

2.

Open on an average online writer. Alone, collar raised. An ordered desk belies the detritus that surrounds his mind. He looks at the letter. BEAT. Disbelief. It was good, it was ready, he new it was. The title on the screenplay looks back at him - Nothing Remarkable. That was how he felt. It was hard but he knew what to do. Straight to the blog. As his hands danced across the keyboard the bitterness of their existence began to leak into cyberspace. The experts were wrong. Terribly wrong. He knew the government was behind it. Arms length funding; ridiculous. The government filter was at work here and his masterpiece was being silenced. But he wouldn't be. Rejection was confirmation - Australian film making was cultural propaganda. It had nothing to do with his rejected screenplay - that was genius.

[Jason]

3.

Darren, I think development funding is almost a thing of the past now. And who's going to jump through all those hoops for $10k anyway, and rely on a team of bureaucrats to judge their work... I won't go down that path again, tempting as it may be since I have been funded before. The best way to get money from the government is to comply with their long list of criteria for funding, where diversity, inclusivity, indigenous content and cultural 'merit' all factor highly. It's no conspiracy theory, it's just the truth. They really 'do' judge work upon based on cultural merit.. Don't you think creative decisions about which films are made should be determined by the free market - audiences and filmmakers, instead of your masters in government?

[Jason]

4.

Thanks Andy.

You're right, there are certainly some very good Australian films. And there's a great deal of filmmaking talent, that's for sure.

[bluebell]

5.

The Wivenhoe Dam saga has all the ingredients of a Steven Spielberg blockbuster.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/a-dam-good-movie-pitch/story-fnbt5t29-1226267248580

Any smart investors out there????

[TJW]

6.

Previous comment didn't work.

Would quality crews turn their noses up at an independent production compared to a state funded one? Or do they go where the work is, no matter what the source of funding?

[Jason]

7.

TJW, not sure I understand the thrust of your post, but crews will certainly follow the money and if they can choose between a big budget government project and a small budget indie, they'd probably go for the money. This sort of thing makes it very hard for independents to compete with the government. But it's worse when indies try to find cinema space - it's very hard to compete with big budget government films.

As far as it mattering where the money comes from - you're right, who could care - it doesn't matter so much where it comes from, but it does matter what you need to do to get it. If you must compromise your creative integrity and produce cultural propaganda in order to be funded... what type of filmmaker does that? It is very tempting, and even a good idea for some - but there needs to be a channel that allows creative freedom. There needs to be a channel for independent filmmakers. Besides, if tax money is the main source of industry growth, it can't go on forever. If it does, eventually we'll all be taxed so much we won't be able go to the movies. I guess that's when they make govt movies free! Like they will need to do with the NBN eventually... and did you hear how they're looking for proposals from artists to sell the NBN - so there's a sure fire movie idea, but it's not as good as the movie about Wivenhoe Dam - which, of course, will never be funded by the government - at least not while it could make the government look bad.