Comments on: Screen Oz calls cut on funds — drama ends six months early

By: Madison

Madison — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 04:44:31 +0000

The question is Ben, why do they need to maintain all the staff if there is nothing being funded?

By: Michael Ware

Michael Ware — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:00:50 +0000

it’s sad? really? is that what it is? cause, like, it IS so very Marxist-Leninist though, isn’t it? like almost exactly. carbon-bloody-copy. can hardly tell them apart. or not. so, perhaps it’s not like a socialist country in the slightest regard, then? still, can only begin to imagine your horror. there, there petal. it’ll all be okay. do wish you’d been with us back in Baghdad however, especially during the civil war. so many uses for such an astute and searingly insightful political commentator as yourself. you’d have been a riot. da bomb. shame.

By: James Butler

James Butler — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:16:44 +0000

sad how dependent australians arts and media on government funding, its like a socialist country.

By: neil busacca

neil busacca — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:20:07 +0000

It is ridiculous to compare the funding to the Australia Council etc.
As Ross Matthews clearly piunts out there are often severe time constraints on funding.
Stars, locations, finance etc may only be available for a short window of time and Screen Australia has to move quite fast.
Im sure the other funding bodies do nothave such deadlines and many of their prrojects can simply be funded in another funding round.
Time constraints are a key difference.
Thats not to say that Screen Australia are terribly well organised.
As with the previous film bodies AFC and FFC funding tends to go to ‘mates’ in a small incestuous industry.
Its remarkable how many on the funding bodies end up working n films they have funded.
Graft and nepotism.
The only solution is to scap all these ‘cultural bodies’ or should i say ‘cultural filtering bodies’ and bring back a simple tax exemption like 10BA.
During the 10ba period Australia made most ofits great films and producers were out there grabbing investors and making films rather than submitting forms to Government bodies like an advanced Centrelink.
Sure some rubbish was made in the 10ba days but it was a prolific creative period unmatchedin Australia.
Then Someone who knew little aboutthe industry came in and created the conservative Gonski report which led to a dropping of the deduction and introduced dripfeed funding from the government and hence the mostly tame, timid and out oftouch shows produced that have mostly minimal audiences.
When was the last time you saw an Australian drama that was remotely political and had something relevant to say rather than simple social programmng.
Australian film bodies and producers live in fear of.becoming the target of an Andrew Bolt article and hence don’t push the limits.

The key to a career in producing in Australia is network, become matey with film funders, rush films out if you can get finance, grab your producer fee and repeat. Funding bodies take such a huge chunk of any ‘success that is hardly worth doing the real hard yards to push a film or itspromotion to the maximum.

Sad but true.
- from an industry insider.

PS - what was the lastAustralian film you recommended to yourfriends (if any)?

By: Michael Ware

Michael Ware — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:52:46 +0000

lot of meal times between now and 1 July 2013, just sayin’. assuming taxpayers’ cash is all on good things. right? so good we can gobble up our entire annual budget half a year early. right? absolutely good things?

don’t mind me. I’m just failing spectacularly to make ends meet. bittermuch, me? perish the thought. only forecasting, as US pilot cycle gears up starting next month. or so.

no gov back-up? just checking, honestly. no harm, no foul. merely clumsily inquiring. just wanna know, heading in to New Year.

best,
Desperate and Depraved.

By: Arty

Arty — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:37:54 +0000

MICHAEL WARE: just be ready to swamp them with applications on I July 2013.

By: Michael Ware

Michael Ware — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:52:33 +0000

I’m with “paddy”, so-called. a link, yes. do. let’s.

By: paddy

paddy — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:37:02 +0000

I’d be fascinated to see a simple list of these “high-quality applications”. Anyone got a link?

By: Arty

Arty — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:28:20 +0000

Maybe I don’t understand the issue.

They have spent their allocation for year 2012-13. Is that supposed to be bad?

What if they were to spend the same amount of money on the same projects, but spread it out over 12 months - would that be good?

By: Michael Ware

Michael Ware — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:31:43 +0000

I probably shoulda changed my name, in retrospect. no?

By: Michael Ware

Michael Ware — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:23:52 +0000

not to put anyone at any film funding body I may yet apply to off-side politically, but, may I say, as a pathetically sad little fledgling production outfit, THIS IS REALLY, WHAT, DISHEARTENING? Let’s say that. We must constantly punch above our weight in these digital days, so it’s a comfort to know our hometown can’t back us this long, dark, coming financial year. choice, bro. hey?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:49:37 +0000

The press release says the funding available for drama was $42 million, not $23 million (as mentioned in the above article). Am I reading it wrong?