Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Feb 22, 2011

Secret $40 million windfall for Great Gatsby despite no koalas, kangaroos

A storm is brewing over the $40 million set to be paid out to Baz Luhrmann's Hollywood blockbuster The Great Gatsby, with angry film industry insiders saying the decision ignores the main game of proper investment in local productions.


A storm is brewing over the $40 million in taxpayer funds to be paid out to Baz Luhrmann’s Hollywood blockbuster The Great Gatsby, with angry film industry insiders saying the decision ignores the main game of proper investment in local productions.

The secretive windfall, offered under Screen Australia’s 40% producer offset for films demonstrating an acceptable level of “Australian content”, is said to have been a major carrot for the decorated filmmaker after he initially planned to film the $120 million Warner Bros opus on location in New York.

Instead, Gatsby, which humorously mocks the excesses of Long Island society during the roaring ’20s and stars American heart-throbs Leonardo diCaprio as Jay Gatsby and Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway, will be filmed at Sydney’s Fox Studios beginning in August. It is expected to employ about 150 people in post-production and visual effects and a rotating cast of tuxedo-clad extras.

On Sunday, outgoing NSW premier Kristina Kenneally announced the state government would also subsidise the extravaganza under her $25 million silver screen war chest announced during last year’s budget. The federal payment is expected to be processed after production ceases.

But Bert Deling, the writer-director of classic Australian crime drama Pure Shit, told Crikey that the looming decision to award Luhrman the $40 million in taxpayer moolah was “tenuous”.

“It seems amazing to me that a film a story set in 1920s America, with American stars and through an American studio and an expatriate Australian director is given money because it is shot in Sydney.”

Under Screen Australia guidelines, the subject matter of the film, the place it’s made, the nationalities and residency of the filmmakers, the details of the production expenditure and “other matters” are all taken into consideration.

However, Gatsby would seem to satisfy only two of those requirements.

According to Deling: “The argument for it is that it gives about 2000 extras work, and of course they’re similar schemes all around the place, in America, Canada and Lithuania probably … but the fact it should be such a huge offset is unreasonable and unnecessary.”

He said the costs for mid-range Australian features such as Bran Nue Dae are massive and that the government, by privileging Luhrmann’s extravaganza, was effectively killing off smaller features at the inception stage.

“State film commissions and funding organisations are stripped of funds … the government shouldn’t be supporting major American feature films that could be shot anywhere. That whole system has collapsed, the situation now is that you get a $120 million film made for 12-year-old boys or pretty much nothing else.”

The Great Gatsby has previously skirted controversy over Luhrmann’s decision to film in 3D, with critics suggesting that the technique would strip the film of its sepia-toned grandeur. Previous effort Australia also cost about $120 million, but flopped tragically at the box office.

Geoff Brown, the executive director of Screen Producers Association of Australia, said the controversy was emblematic of broader legal fights over the Screen Australia “Australianness” definition.

“It’s great that Baz is continuing to make films on a big scale and … we don’t want to prejudice the project but clearly the Australianness test has to be met.”

Brown said the interpretation of the definition had changed after the administration of the offset had moved from the Film Finance Corporation to Screen Australia.

“When the scheme was introduced in 2007 we didn’t have to put a kangaroo and a koala in the film to get the tax break … we need certainty and we’re not getting it.”

Brown said one his members, Beyond Productions, had recently taken the federal government to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal over a rejection for the documentary Taboo — set to be screened globally on the National Geographic Channel but employing a majority of Australian staff — but that the case was unsuccessful.

Arts Minister Simon Crean had been asked for clarification following the slapdown, and elements of the definition that would appear to grant blockbusters a free ride are currently under review.

A spokesperson for the minister said the government offered a producer offset of 40%, and a lower level of offsets for offshore productions brought to Australia of 15%.

“It is up to the Great Gatsby producers to apply for certification under the strict guidelines and conditions set for the offsets.”

Last week, Crean announced a review of the independent screen production sector that said government support has trebled from $136.7 million to $412.1 million in the three years since the introduction of the incentive in 2007-08.

“Although it’s still early days, the increase in activity, particularly the production of Australian large budget films, such as Baz Luhrmann’s Australia and George Miller’s Happy Feet 2, and the box office performance of films such as Tomorrow, When the War Began shows the government support for the sector is having a significant impact,” the minister said.

Strangely, Screen Australia would not confirm whether Luhrmann was in negotiations to receive the offset, despite its widespread reporting in the media, citing tax secrecy laws: “While Screen Australia administers the offset, we cannot comment on any projects that may or may not receive the offset as the agency is bound by tax secrecy laws.”

A spokesperson for Luhrmann told Crikey that “Baz is on a family break with Catherine Martin and their children and has no comment to make at this time.”


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

18 thoughts on “Secret $40 million windfall for Great Gatsby despite no koalas, kangaroos

  1. dawsondog

    The government should front up money to stop Luhrmann from making this film, indeed any film.

  2. Holden Back

    ‘Australia’ made its budget back and $90m to boot. As flops go . . .

    As one who has recently re-read the book and seen the Redford/Farrow movie (oh dear, not even so bad it’s good), I’d say it’s Fitzgerald’s prose that makes the story of interest.

  3. baal

    What’s the betting we get a campy piece de post-noir noir? Gatsby is a slim tale which will require subtlety and nuances, none of which has ever been displayed by Lurmann in his previous excursions. The man has v. little talent but a lot of luck and cheek. Australia ‘earned’ him a similar if not bigger handout from which the country got precious little (remember all the crap about how it was going to flood us with tourists?) it was an international flop even though it did OK here (out of loyalty and curiosity). The only beneficiaries will be out of work technicians and Fox studios (now remind me, who owns that?)

  4. Daniel

    Luhrmann doesn’t necessarily make *bad* films, but he directs with a certain style that I’m not sure fits Gatsby. Then again, the roaring ’20s certainly seem colourful and decadent enough so who knows!

  5. baal

    Sorry DANIEL, but Luhrmann has no ‘style.’ Australia was a simplistic arrangement of extended montages (rather than scenes) with a bit of horse riding, cattle droving and bombing raids most of which ended up with two people running towards each other and hugging to swelling cheesy music. He shoots scenes without dynamic and little action so has to fall back on cutting shots to a tempo (more a habit due to shortcomings than a ‘style’) rather than shotting real action – the video clip mode is well evidenced in the opening of Romeo & Juliet and the entirety of Moulin Rouge. Still, he’s got the funds so he knows how to talk his way through the process to people with the cash. I’m told this skill is a very large part of being a ‘success’ in the movies

  6. jocelynne scutt

    tax secrecy laws? nonsense. it is a matter of transparency vis-a-vis government funding. screen australia is bound by principles of transparency, openness in terms of funding and funding arrangements, and the notion that tax secrecy laws can oust public scrutiny of film australia decisions is risable.

  7. zut alors

    Here’s an idea.

    Forget making the film here. Instead the Australian Govt should write a generous $20K cheque to each of the local 150 actors/post production etc people to compensate for missing out on the project. That will only cost we hapless taxpayers $3M, a handsome saving.

    The other saving will be a Scott Fitzgerald embarrassment.

  8. baal

    Agreed. This is serious Emperor’s New Clothes country were heading for

  9. leone

    2000 extras???? Why? This alone tells me that dear Baz is planning yet another over-blown, over-hyped extravanganza. It will have little to do with The Great Gatsby and a lot to do with his wife’s dream of designing a lot of over-the-top 1920’s frocks. The only good news so far is that Nicole Kidman isn’t going to appear.

  10. Sam G

    This is going to be bad bad bad.. can’t understand why Le0 de Caprio is attached to it (he is on a roll).

    Still. Whatever the film looks like in the cinema, it doesn’t deserve a $40m Australian subsidy.

  11. Holden Back

    It doesn’t count if you set out to make something so bad it’s good, does it?

    Leone, you read my mind regarding La Kidman.

  12. leone

    Maybe this one will go the way of Lurhmann’s aborted Alexander the Great film. Remember that? It was going to star Leonardo do Caprio as Alexander and Ms Kidman as his mum. Baz had somehow managed to get John Howard’s support to make some of the movie in Australia. Thank God it never happened. Baz abandoned his movie when Oliver Stone got his Alexander up and running first. It was a dog, but it meant the world was saved from a Lurhmann version of ancient history.

  13. John Lewis

    Bert Deling makes Pure Sh*t in 1975 – and Andrew Crook writes Pure Crap in 2011. There is so much wrong with this sloppy careless piece of ‘reporting’ – not a first for Crook – that Crikey really ought to start paying attention to its own journalistic standards while it’s so busy wagging it’s finger – perfectly justifiably – at others. There’s a good story here, but Crook missed it – by a mile.

  14. Stiofan

    @John Lewis

    Thanks for the info on Pure Sh*t. When I read “classic Australian crime drama Pure Shit”, my initial reaction was: “Hang on – wasn’t I just out of school when that was released?” Although I’m not an afficianado of Oz films, I’m fairly certain that very few regard it as a classic!

    From a purely amateur perspective, I continue to wonder why Australian film flops around in the mire so much. There seems to be little between jobbing work for US studios and dire homemade dramas that, frankly, deserve their sh*t box office. There are a ton of good story ideas out there! If the film rights to Voss ever got sorted out, it would make a great movie – but only if Baz Luhrmann never got near it!

  15. Socratease

    After sleeping through the majority of that turkey Australia, I’m not falling for another Lurhmann experiment.

    As for hand-out film funding, I’m a fan of the way I’m told that the Indian government goes about it: You make your film, get it classified, and then apply for a rebate. In other words, go out and find enough private backers to finance your production, submit the film for official classification as proof of completion, and then we’ll give you the applicable government benefit.

  16. Sean

    I slept, or dozed fitfully rather, through Moulin Rouge, Socratease. Nobody warned me the entire script was a pastiche of bad pop song lyrics as the ‘gimmick’ and the story was just a big block of cliched 50s-style Hollywood cheese, something Luhrmann seems to think all films should be, in a very Neighbours script way. (And who writes those ‘scripts’? Seems to be an Australian problem generally. Like a strange distorted reflection of imported cheesy movies seen in childhood. Cultural imperialism meets cultural cringe and creates bad cinematic moments.)

    @John Lewis, what’s the real story? We’re all dying to know. I assume Screen Australia won’t be using any real auditors to assess the grant they’ve made to Luhrmann under a strict application of the grant criteria, eh, Minister Crean? With the ATO, it’s apparently one rule for us and another rule for the elite, especially under today’s Labor govt that doesn’t know what it stands for, harking back to the first right-wing exemplar Hawke’s boot-licking days of Bondy and Skase, no doubt. Ignore that man behind the curtain, and remember the Oz govt’s no push-over. It’s only your money and mine they’re giving to Baz and some Hollywood stars with their modest $10m fees. We’re one step away from Mubarak it seems.

  17. baal

    Thanks SEAN for keeping this thread alive even though it’s only us chickens roosting here. I think the Labor’s Party’s idea of ‘culture’ has not advanced much since Keating’s clocks and Mahler days (except for a few grassroots initiative community arts grants which don’t get, or need, the headlines.) Handing out money to the likes of Luhrmann indicates there’s definitely a cringe operating – they don’t want to be accused of being Philistine. After all, GG is a great and famous book probably set at VCE/HSC level.

  18. Sean

    Next month — Paul Hogan, with previous form for creative tax accounting (competely exonerated!), films a sensitive production of Catcher in the Rye on a studio lot and gets $100M from Treasurer W. Goose. Of your money.

    Ain’t nobody here but us chickens… I only responded 6 days late because I’m still bitter about Moulin Rouge. I only read reviews these days and wait for DVD launches.


https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/22/secret-windfall-for-great-gatsby-despite-no-koalas-kangaroos/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.