Maureen
Barron
Chief
Executive
Screen
NSW
Level
5, 323 Castlereagh St
Sydney
2001
15th
Oct 2014
Dear Maureen
Imagine this: A young Australian Mark
Zuckerberg applies to Screen NSW’s Early Stage Script Development fund to
develop a feature film screenplay to be shot, multicam, with the latest (and
best) mobile phone available on the market.
Mark Hamlyn and Kate Stone refuse
to read and assess the project on the grounds that ‘Mr Zuckerberg’, aged 21,
has not made a feature film in the last 10 years. They tell him that he must
have, as part of his development team, someone who meets the criteria clearly
laid out in the guidelines.
Imagine, at the other end of the
age spectrum, that Bob Ellis has teamed up with Mark Latham (or Malcolm Fraser)
to develop a political thriller along the lines of BORGEN. They told by Mark
Hamlyn and Kate Stone that their application can cannot be read and assessed
because neither of them qualifies in accordance with Screen NSW guidelines.
Just last week there was a story
in the Sydney Morning Herald about a 15 year old boy, Ben Pasternak who, “bored
one day during science class…decided to design an iPhone game.”
Stories such as this abound these
days but Australian versions of boys such as Ben Pasternak, young men such as Mark
Zuckerberg, could not get their idea read and assessed by Screen NSW as a
result of the exclusionary policies that you, as Chief Executive, are
responsible for keeping in place?
What purpose do such policies
serve other than to force young people with exciting ideas into collaborative
relationships with ‘experienced’ filmmakers who may not only be inappropriate
for the project but damaging to it?
How many young and not-so-young
filmmakers and would-be filmmakers are there in NSW whose feature film ideas
cannot be read and assessed by Screen NSW for no other reason than that your
guidelines forbid it?
Does a good idea, in its initial
stages, require a ‘team’ of experienced filmmakers to assist a screenwriter in
its early stage development?
An example from my own life. In
brief:
A screenwriter falls in love with
a book. This is me, falling in love with Archie Weller’s novel, DAY OF THE DOG.
Screenwriter/Director/Producer
develops first draft. No producers interested. “Depressing”, says one.
Screenwriter persists, writes
half a dozen more drafts. Still no interest from producers.
By about the 10th
draft a senior executive at the Australian Film Commission (Peter Sainsbury)
sees potential in the screenplay for BLACKFELLAS and funds two more drafts. He
then declares that he is prepared to recommend to the board that the AFC invest
in the film.
On the basis of this ‘promisory
note’ the Producer/Writer/Director approaches the ABC, which also expresses its
interest in investing.
With nominal commitments of two
thirds of the budget in place the Producer/Writer/Director approaches an
Executive Producer who, very cleverly, manages to structure a deal whereby the
entire budget for the film is raised.
The Producer/Writer/Director then
hands the producorial reins over to the Executive Producer – three weeks before
the commencement of Principal Photography.
A couple of points:
Under current Screen NSW guidelines
BLACKFELLAS would not have received any script development funding at any
stage.
If I had not persevered with the project,
through around 10 drafts when interest in the project was zero, there would be
no film.
This kind of tenacious commitment
to an idea, a screenplay, a project is, of course, commonplace. How long did it
take Baz Lurhman to develop STRICTLY BALLROOM? Would Baz have qualified for
Early Stage Script Development funds under the guidelines you now administer?
Would YOUNG EINSTEIN, as an idea in development, have been read by the
equivalents of Mark Hamlyn and Kate Stone? No. MURIEL’S WEDDING? ANIMAL
KINGDOM?
I suspect that many of the very
best Australian films, the ones that we now consider to be ‘classics’ and of
which we are justifiably proud, were made by producers, writers and directors
who persevered over a number of years with a project they felt passionate about
but who would not, under your current guidelines, qualify for Early Stage
Script Development funds.
I am but one of many ‘victims’ of
your exclusionary policy – one that dictates my 43 years of producing, writing
and directing films not equipping me to apply for Early Stage Script
Development funds for my thriller series, ANGKOR. And, if some young Australian
Mark Zuckerberg or Ben Pasternak were to approach me and ask if I could help
them develop their feature film idea, your guidelines dictate that I would not
be qualified to do so. This policy is counter-productive, absurd and has
nothing in it that I can discern that is likely enhance the quality of
Australian screenplays!
There is a time when, in the best
interests of the film to be produced, it makes a lot of sense for there to be a
team involved. This could be at the project’s inception or it could be when
there is a 15th draft screenplay in place. Horses for courses!
You are responsible, Maureen, for
these exclusionary guidelines. You are the Captain of the good ship Screen NSW
and you have put in place (or refuse to dismantle) guidelines that preclude a
whole range of applicants from having their projects read and assessed. Why? To
what end? Please explain to those of us working in Australian film who are
mystified by a policy that has no discernible upside!
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment