Reflections on the NZFC Review

Sir Peter Jackson and David Court took over a year to compile their review of the NZ Film Commission (NZFC) and yet on the day the review was released the industry was expected to give instant responses to various media questions. This is so typical of the modern media. By and large they won’t give a damn what the outcomes might be in the longer term so long as they get a story today.

Now that I’ve had time to re-read and consider the contents of the review I think I can safely respond. (Ah, if only the notes I had written up on my computer had not vanished into the ether).

I have to agree that it should not be necessary for a writer and/or director to have a producer ‘attached’ to a project when it’s still in development. In my opinion the Film Commission’s push towards a more producer-driven industry was always a mistake. We’re a small industry with writers and directors generally being the main driving force behind Kiwi feature films.

I concur with the comment: “The ability to read a script and effectively imagine the potential, or lack of potential, in the finished film is a very rare talent.” Over the years, in response to the often expressed idea that we did not have writing talent in NZ, I have always said that the problem is less a lack of writing talent than a lack of reading talent. It’s quite surprising how few people, even among those of us who work in the business, can visualize an outcome. I have even come across directors who have trouble in this regard.

Finding funding for a film is always going to be a bit of a lottery but the ‘escalator scheme’ as described seems more like a lolly scramble. The ‘escalator scheme’ perfectly illustrates the bureaucratic road block first-time film makers can meet when trying to work with the NZFC: too many ‘guidelines’, not enough freedom to explore their own preferred ideas. And too much work expected with only a slim chance of bringing their ideas to fruition. Be interesting to see what comes out of this scheme.

Yes, the board’s role in decision-making should be curtailed; and the decision making process should be brought out from behind closed doors.

As noted in the report, bureaucracy and film making are an uncomfortable mix.

This is where the main difficulties will arise if the NZFC is to move, as suggested in the review, to a more creative partnership role in the way they work with film makers. I’m sure many film makers would like to just take the money and keep film commission staff at arm’s length. However, if we want the Commission to be more open and more directly accountable in their decision making processes then a more collaborative engagement between the funding body and the film maker will be necessary.

I find it interesting that the review generally encourages more flexibility in the way in which the Commission engages with film makers, allowing for more creative freedom, while at the same time it suggests that writers should have lessons in screenplay structure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for learning and developing skills but, as the reviewers state more than once, the strength of the idea comes first.

A script will always need reworking and rewriting. I’ve never been one for analyzing a script’s structure, I simply take it as it comes off the page, and I’ve read a lot of scripts in my time; mind you I have never written one.

I’m not convinced by the reviewers’ arguments about short films.

Certainly the current arrangement whereby selected producers or producer groups get to decide who gets to make their short film idea into reality could be seen as a bit random. This may not be well aligned with the suggested approach of talent spotting and development of that talent, but I personally quite like that randomness. For a while I was involved in the decision making process in the years before it was farmed out to producer groups and I can’t say it worked any better than the current arrangement. A bit like judging awards winners by committee where there is a tendency for decisions to boil down to the lowest common denominator. During that time I also became aware that the size of a short film’s budget does not necessarily have any bearing on the quality of the finished film. Similarly, whether a film maker gets finance for their project or not, the determined and committed film maker will get the project made regardless.

I understand the point the reviewers make about the NZFC’s key role being to develop feature films and feature film makers. Short films can be a good starting point for a film maker finding their feet, however, they are essentially a different medium from long form drama and don’t necessarily help build the talent and skills required for a film maker to move on to feature film making. But short films are a strength of ours. My attitude is that we should acknowledge short films as a medium in themselves and find ways to distribute and exhibit them more widely; and yes I do have some ideas.

The review lays out a ‘three-level model’, meaning three stages in developing talented Kiwi film makers’ careers, and I quote ...

“1/ Find talent and develop their first feature film.

2/ Assist the successful film makers to develop their next NZ movie - and encourage them to stay based in New Zealand.

3/ A growing number of successful Kiwi film makers base themselves in NZ attracting big budget finance from offshore.”

These are admirable aims which are well worth striving for but I wonder where that leaves some of our more Kiwi-centric film makers who may contribute considerably to our artistic and/or cultural depth and understanding, while not necessarily making a big impact internationally? We sure as hell can’t rely on television to provide that cultural depth.