Hard News: The Commission, and creative risk
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
And what about something particularly controversial - in other words, could there be another Sleeping Dogs or Meet the Feebles?
-
It's hard to imagine a 'Feebles' getting funding these days, although I think 'Sleeping Dogs' could still pass muster, being based on a CK Stead book and all, but it's still actually really hard to attract any funding from NZFC unless you're "known quantitiy" really. The Donaldson from Sleeping Dogs might be sucessful, the Jackson from Feebles would have a harder job convincing them to take the chance.
Although I don't think Feebles was funded anyway, probably wouldn't have got the money then either :)
-
If it's all about identifying talent, let's kill two birds and do a Project Runway/The Apprentice-style TV show. Aspiring film makers can get ritually humiliated by Ian Mune for 12 weeks and the winner directs the straight-to-DVD sequel to Whalerider, where Paikea and her pet Minke wreak bloody revenge on a Japanese scientific research ship in the Southern Ocean.
-
3410,
That's the point I'm trying to make - obviously not very well.
Not at all. I'm just saying that there seems to be an assumption that everything has to be commercial. Why? Let's face it, the Commission has many times funded some multi-million dollar turkeys that've sunk without trace. People don't generally call that a waste of money; rather, just an occupation hazard of dealing with such a nebulous thing as creative quality.
Re: the above point, the question is "promising" what? Why must every project be seen as potentially great art and box office gold? It just seems to me that they want a grand mansion without any foundations.
Or, to put it another way - and, as much as I hate to use sports metaphors; moreso rugby ones - if the dozen or twenty feature and short projects green-lit each year are the All Blacks, then where's the Super 12* or NPC?
I'm just suggesting that sometimes a modest investment in a go-nowhere digital test run might prepare a talented newcomer to really kick arse when they've got a real budget.
Taika Waititi, for instance, - a really smart fellow - has spoken of how he had to put BOY on the back burner while he learned how to make features on the simpler - and easier to get right - Eagle vs Shark .
*note to rugby fans: I'm kidding!
-
3410,
If it's all about identifying talent, let's kill two birds and do a Project Runway/The Apprentice-style TV show.
It exists! (but it sucked).
On The Lot:
-
And what about something particularly controversial - in other words, could there be another Sleeping Dogs...
you'd hope, Sleeping Dogs was a triple win for all involved and the audience as well...
kick starting the modern local film industry, sourced from a New Zealand literary source (CK Stead's Smith's Dream) and a great kiwi soundtrack!The ripples from that small pebble in a small pond are still crashing ashore - witness the careers of many involved - Sam Neill, Ian Mune, Roger Donaldson, Larry Parr, Murray Grindlay, Don Selwyn, Arthur Baysting, Michael Seresin, Alun Bollinger, Geoff Murphy, Ian Watkin, Davina Whitehouse, hell Dougal Stevenson even played himself!
There's a doco about the making of it
and a helpful piece at the NZ Film Archivewhatever happened to the overseas talent - Warren Oates?
-
Taika Waititi, for instance, - a really smart fellow - has spoken of how he had to put BOY on the back burner while he learned how to make features on the simpler - and easier to get right - Eagle vs Shark .
I do understand your point, but your example illustrates mine - according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_vs_Shark/ the NZFC coughed up $1.8 million to make that - not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes.
Filmmaking is an expensive business.
-
As far as I'm concerned it should be compulsory for Warren Oates to be cast in every New Zealand film. He might not show up due to a scheduling conflict with his death, but that dude was awesome.
It exists! (but it sucked).
On The Lot:There are no new ideas on this earth. Sigh.
-
3410,
I do understand your point, but your example illustrates mine
I don't think so.
the NZFC coughed up $1.8 million to make that - not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes.
He admitted it!
Yes, it's "not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes." That's my point. Only through his vision did it come off in this case, but this is S.O.P.; $2m to "learn the ropes".
Anyway, point made, as you say.
-
3410,
As far as I'm concerned it should be compulsory for Warren Oates to be cast in every New Zealand film. He might not show up due to a scheduling conflict with his death, but that dude was awesome.
Okay, we agree on something. ;)
-
As far as I'm concerned it should be compulsory for Warren Oates to be cast in every New Zealand film. He might not show up due to a scheduling conflict with his death, but that dude was awesome.
Damn! and I was hoping he'd be in the new movie "Bring me the Android Head of Philip K Dick"
-
I'm just suggesting that sometimes a modest investment in a go-nowhere digital test run might prepare a talented newcomer to really kick arse when they've got a real budget.
But then the Film Commission is essentially paying for education, which is really not something I think that the Film Commission should be doing.
I also don't particularly like the idea of handing out public money based on `educated people with hunches'. Attractive as the idea of the heroic funder picking the talent and backing them to the hilt is, it is an idea I am really rather suspicious of. It seems to scream `jobs for the boys'. Yes art-by-committee isn't always a good thing, but on the other hand, film is very very expensive, and we have a right to expect accountability when that money gets spent.
-
3410,
But then the Film Commission is essentially paying for education, which is really not something I think that the Film Commission should be doing.
That's what they do now (see previous comment re: Eagle vs Shark).
I'm suggesting they should spend less (per project) on this.
-
But Eagle vs Shark wasn't funded so that Waititi could learn from it. It was funded because it was a good film to make.
-
3410,
Might I also just mention that "digitally shot" does not necessarily equal "not commercial". Commercially released digtally shot features have been around for over 15 years.
-
the straight-to-DVD sequel to Whalerider, where Paikea and her pet Minke wreak bloody revenge on a Japanese scientific research ship in the Southern Ocean
I'd watch that. On DVD, mind.
-
I'd really watch that if the whale wasnt a minke (yeah, I know, just a name but - minkes are relatively small baleen whales whereas the just-discovered remains of a whale that *may* have eaten minkes for brekkie - truly impressive teeth in both upper & lower jaws! Check out Discovery/Animal news or the Beeb)
which could certainly make a bloody satisfying meal of a Japanese 'scientific reasearch' ship's crew-
and great to see Peter Bethune can come back to this country- -
3410: "Digitally Shot" also doesn't necessarily mean "cheaper" - most people shooting on RED end up running basically the same budget they would with film. The producers of House have said their budget wasn't reduced at all by shooting the final ep of the last season with Canon 5D cameras (much more was spent in post-production).
The main advantage, as I see it, for digital in things like independent features and shorts is a practical one - shooting on film imposes some very real limitations in shooting that might be counter-productive. If you can only afford 30 rolls of film then that's all you can shoot. You're may well settle for "good enough" on set because you need to 'get it in the can.
As for Eagle vs. Shark getting $1.8m as a training opportunity - well, RadiRadiRah got basically the same amount of money from NZ On Air for eight half-hour episode. I know what I think was the better way to spend public funds.
Essentially I think NZFC is spending too much money on individual shorts, and not ensurine that the people who get that funding are people who can really benefit from it.
-
Has anyone ever had a good word to say about 'Radiradirah"?
I never watched the thing (it sounded a kind of toxic concept) and I've only read really negative reviews... -
A few things I might add surrounding Taika, 48hrs, shorts, learning the ropes and 'talent'.
Firstly - yes, Taika is a grand-ninja-master of 48hrs, but none of his 48hr gems would've led him to the top grossing NZ film BOY.
A punt was taken to let him make one of those expensive NZFC shorts by one of the EP groups. It was a punt, a calculated risk - as he'd not made a film before. The result, TWO CARS ONE NIGHT got an Academy Award Nomination, and that then got him noticed stateside and into the Sundance lab where he worked on EAGLE VS. SHARK. And it was this short that he later adapted into BOY.
I think when PJ and NZFC are talking 'talent' they are talking about backing dudes like Taika to the hilt. And why not - who's gonna begrudge the guy. In European terms he has only made 2 feature films and is still very much 'emerging' and 'learning the ropes'. What filmmakers need to realise though (and i'm sure that when they use the word 'talent' they include themselves) is that they will also have get an Oscar nom or a Cannes Palm to also be considered 'talent' and get the same level of support.
Filmmaking is a global business - not macrame.
Wheedling about whether you're shooting digital or not, or whether 48hrs or shorts are important is missing the point surely. -
Yes and no - what was sucessful about Two Cars One Night (probably NZ's most widely sucessful short in terms of accolades, but still just about no one has seen it) was the story, characterisation and directing. I don't t know how much funding it got, but I'm fairly certain that exactly the same great film could have been made for a lot less if necessary.
And while he may not have made a film before Taika was pretty well known in theatre circles before Two Cars, which presumably counted for something.
Granted none of Taika's 48HOURS shorts have any bearing for him (I've seen them all, even the 2003 insanity) but for many other teams/individuals they are a great indicator and should be looked upon by NZ On Air and NZFC as a great 'hunting ground' - I'm talking especially about teams like Downlow and Goodfellas (that spring to mind in Auckland) who've consistently made great films with strong story, acting and direction.
-
but I'd rather have an NZ series in the league of Cracker, Red Riding Trilogy, The Wire, Deadwood, Sopranos - hell, going back even further an Edge of Darkness (directed by a Kiwi) - than setting up a funding body to try and to capture lightening in a bottle like Boy or The Piano.
So, what you want is the kind of shows written, directed and produced by people who cut their teeth (and learned their craft) on industrial strength shit churned out by massive, product-hungry industries we seldom see here? If you want to put that production model to Cabinet, the best of luck to you...
Or put another way: Roger Corman gave a pretty impressive roll call of talent (from Martin Scorsese to James Cameron) their first credits. Don't know if that's much of an argument for the NZFC funding a string of Z-grade exploitation flicks.
-
Actually, I think it is kinda disrespectful to mention Outrageous Fortune in the same breath as The Cult and Insiders Guide -- it's achieved a lot more than either of those.
not even in the same breath? Jeez...
-
Has anyone ever had a good word to say about 'Radiradirah"?
I never watched the thing (it sounded a kind of toxic concept) and I've only read really negative reviews...I tried, but the nausea got the better of me. Have preferred 7days, but at times of late they seem to be, if not crossing the line, at least trampling on it with reckless abandon. Still, it makes me laugh, so shouldn't complain.
-
Hmm - I think you'll find Downlow and Damon from Goodfellas are well on the NZOA / NZFC radar already... Downlow have got a couple of chunks totalling almost a million from NZOA in the last few months, are developing a feature, and are the guys behind '7 Days'.
Damon has made quite a bit for TV, made NZFC shorts, has a feature in development with NZFC and I believe is currently directing the Jonno Project funded by NZOA.
As ever - the good stuff floats to the top - and I think both these 48hr teams have been well on the radar for many years.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.