"You're Terrible Muriel" - The Problem With Australia's Film Industry: Part 1

Whilst Screen Australia and the Federal government have taken many steps towards the safeguarding of our industry (such as introducing the producer's offset then reducing it from $1m to $500,000; increasing the location offset and PDV offsets; and abolishing the thieving Division 10B/10A incentives), there are still many hurdles across which filmmakers and television producers must clamber over before receiving a cent for their productions. Over the past 3 weeks, I have been attending many seminars and talks with various filmmakers and even Heather MacFarlane herself (Project Manager for Screen Australia), all of which have outlined to me the frustration Australian filmmakers are experiencing when it comes to getting well-needed funds for their films. The reason why the industry is struggling is due mainly to the fact that it is so difficult to achieve the requirements Screen Aus outlines in its funding guidelines for their Features Development Funding Scheme.

This is issue #1 (more to be explored later):

1. "Screen Australia generally requires the commitment of an experienced producer as part of the team, and that the application should come from the producer."
Sounds simple enough but here's the problem. First of all, Screen Australia's definition of an "experienced" producer reads as follows:

An ‘experienced producer’ is defined as having at least one credit as producer on:

* a feature film or theatrical feature documentary that has been released on a minimum of five commercial screens in one territory, OR
* a primetime broadcast drama miniseries or telemovie.

Why is this an issue? First of all, in 2009, only 12% of movies screened across Australia's 1,989 theater screens were Australian. This accounts for just 238 screens and with theater numbers dropping each year (Numbers dropped from 525 to 492 between 2004-2009), this number is expected to decrease over the years.

So 238 screens, for the WHOLE year, to screen 37 Australian made films. At best, these films could manage to get on to 6 screens if they were in equal competition with eachother. However, factoring in the number of prints for each of these films, we soon realize that is not possible. The number of "prints" made by production companies each year is a particular strategy adopted to offset of stock processing and distribution. According to the Screen Australia report titled Analysis of Release Strategies and Box Office Performance 2009, "Around 82% of Australian feature films over this period were given either a limited release (less than 20 prints) or specialty release (20–99 prints)." The figures from this report show that all in all, 38 films were released on 0-19 prints, 42 were released on 20-99, 12 were released on 100-199 prints and just 5 made it into the "wide" and "blockbuster" ranges of over 200 prints (total of 97 films released on 0 - 400+ prints.)

But wait! I hear you say. You said that only 37 films were screened on Australian cinemas last year... What happened to the other 60?!

During my research, I wasn't able to come across these figures (all of these numbers by the way have been collated from the Screen Australia website.) And trying to provide an estimate as to the number of prints made from all 97 films would be foolish. We can say for certain however that a good number of them did not make their way into Australian cinemas. Popular guesses as to the current location of these rejects are that they have now been converted into draft extinguishers, footstools and stubby holders.

So how the hell can we work out then which films and their producers made it only more than 5 screens?! And more importantly, how many of these producers are still accessibly to small, independent directors/writers/production companies. Let's have a look at the top 5 highest grossing Australian films of 2009 and their associated producers:
1. Mao's Last Dancer. Executive Producer: Sue Mackay (Australian)
2. Australia. Producer: G. Mac Brown (American)
3. Knowing. Executive Producer: David Alper (American)
4. Charlie and Boots. Executive Producer: Thomas Augsberger (German)
5. Samson and Delilah. Producer: Kath Shelper (Australian)

So out of the top 5 grossing Australian films of 2009, 3 of the 5 E.P's and Producers were not Australian. And Mao's Last Dancer wasn't entirely Australian either (it was co-produced with Geng Ling from China.)

I hope you can see where I am going with all these statistics and facts. It is hard enough trying to find an idea, develop it, turn it into a script, find people who want to make it into a film, make the damn thing, and then try and convince a dwindling Australian audience to go out and watch it. How, in all of that, are Australian filmmakers expected to get an "experienced" producer attached to the project as well?

This is my argument against the very first guideline posed by Screen Australian for their Features Development Funding Scheme. Yes, there is a potential guarantee of success for the film if they are attached to an "experienced" producer. But this should be a sweetener for Screen Australia, the cherry on top. The rest should be made based on other factors relating to the concept of the film's narrative itself. Anyway, I hope this has been enlightening for you. I know I am exhausted trying to get all those numbers around my head but be warned, there are more to come, as I endeavor to expose our industry's main problems and pose solutions to them too.

(Its interesting to note that Samson and Delilah, the list's only truly Australian production, were not financed through the Features Development Funding Scheme.)