KEY POINTS:
After a year in which Second Hand Wedding proved the feel good hit of the winter and a string of local releases held up well at the box office, moviegoers could be forgiven for thinking New Zealand's film industry was in rude health.
Not even the most imaginative
screenwriter could have foreseen a decade which brought Hollywood productions to our shores and Peter Jackson blockbusters alongside the customary shoestring gems such as Eagle vs Shark. New Zealand has become, as The Australian newspaper put it, "the role model for national filmmaking outside the Hollywood studio system".
That verdict came as the Aussies poached NZ Film Commission chief executive Ruth Harley to head the new Screen Australia, a merging of Australia's national film bodies.
By way of introducing herself to Australians, Dr Harley was unabashed about the New Zealand industry's progress - not least the ability of our filmmakers to engage with local audiences.
"When I went to the Film Commission [in 1997] it was quite a sad organisation, an organisation with low morale, and now it's definitely not that," she said. "The organisation has transformed, it's bigger, got more resources, has an excellent relationship with government and, in the wake of The Lord of the Rings, it's managed to create a holistic industry which is pretty connected through all levels."
Imagine the consternation among creative types, then, at the jaffas thrown at the commission by celebrated producer John Barnett in the industry magazine OnFilm.
Barnett's production credits include Whale Rider and Sione's Wedding. His company, South Pacific Pictures, makes the small screen hits Outrageous Fortune and Shortland St.
His commentary amounts to a sustained panning of the commission which this year will spend about $30 million supporting the industry. The commission is "almost the last bastion of covert secrecy" in not declaring how much it invests in each feature film, he writes. Its "non-disclosure" policy could be seen as a way of covering up inconsistencies and a patchy performance. Only three of the 60-plus films produced in the last 15 years have repaid the NZFC investment. The lack of data has created a dependent industry rather than an independent one. And so on.
Barnett seems most concerned with the growing dilution of production funding into areas such as development, industry support, marketing and administration.
"Less than 27 per cent of the NZFC budget is allocated to the only activity it was set up for." For good measure, he fired broadsides at board and staff "complacency" and claimed the commission requires organisations it funds to refrain from public questioning of NZFC policy.
Barnett has long railed against dependence on the public purse and in favour of placing the industry on a more commercial footing.
What makes the tirade significant is the timing - coinciding with Harley's departure, the change of Government and the international financial crisis. Incoming Arts Minister Chris Finlayson has flagged that the commission and its governing legislation are in line for reform - raising unease in a left-leaning industry which for nine years enjoyed the ear of former Prime Minister Helen Clark as Arts Minister.
Finlayson has previously hinted at changes to the 30-year-old Film Commission Act to encourage a more commercial focus. Barnett's comments also pumped-up the creative tension at this week's annual gathering of Spada, the screen production and development association. He was taken to task by another production doyen, John Maynard, who returned from Australia to address an industry unrecognisable from the days of Vigil and An Angel at My Table, landmark films he co-produced.
Maynard and others fear any moves to incentivise "commercial" projects will threaten "cultural" films which enhance our sense of national identity. Picking winners is also fraught with difficulty.
"It's impossible to predict in advance what works or doesn't; which films will be commercially successful." He cites our highest grossing film Once Were Warriors, which was famously turned down by the commission.
For its part, the commission returned fire on the eve of the conference - of which it was principal sponsor - with a point-by-point rebuttal by chairman David Cullwick appearing on OnFilm's website. Cullwick disputed Barnett's figures on spending and pointed out that the "secrecy" surrounding production investment stemmed from producers' concerns about commercial confidentiality.
"There will always be debate between those who want all or most funds allocated only to film production financing and those who support a wider approach encompassing talent and script development, production financing, international sales and marketing, support of industry organisations and administration," Cullwick writes.
"John [Barnett] appears to be measuring this activity against a purely commercial yardstick, whereas the NZFC ... is required by its statutory obligations to undertake activity in support of films which may not be easily measurable by that commercial standard."
Barnett told the Weekend Herald the commission's broad brief is no longer appropriate, given the industry's growth since 1978. He points to NZ on Air as an alternative model - one which allocates no money for development or training.
"If the commission was to function as the funding agency for film then you would see more activity and more likelihood that the industry will grow. And they don't have to be commercial films, they have to be films that are about New Zealand and of New Zealand."
He has taken up an invitation to speak to the commission's board. It's fair to say Barnett's views are not shared by all. But everyone agrees that the industry faces challenges to sustain a decade of gains - or, indeed, to be sustainable.
Spada president Richard Fletcher says the global financial crisis adds to the funding challenges in a cyclical business. "The film financing model that's been operating has dramatically changed," says Fletcher. "It will take the industry a while to adapt."
Changes to tax rules in Britain and Germany have affected international film financing, particularly co-productions. Across the Tasman, tax breaks to encourage an Australian film revival threatened a talent exodus here - until the Clark Government allocated an extra $36 million over five years to usher in a new feature film funding model.
The new environment makes the new Government's intentions for the Film Commission critical. Finlayson, a former chairman of Creative NZ's arts board, says the commission has served the country well but it's timely to look at its governance, structure and purpose.
"The 1978 act had a strong cultural purpose. Now we've got a very diverse film industry." He appears to have an open mind, saying he is keen to work with the industry to address issues "so we've got a body that continues to provide good service for another 10 years".
There are fears the financial climate could see a downturn in local output in two to three years. But Spada CEO Penelope Borland says the new local funding model - the Screen Production Incentive Fund - enables producers "to bring serious financial equity to the table. ... We expect it to result in more New Zealand films."
