Editorial: Jackson right man for the job

Opinion

It's impossible to imagine anyone better qualified to undertake a review of the New Zealand Film Commission than the country's most prodigiously successful filmmaker, Peter Jackson. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, announced this week that the maestro from Miramar will lead a ministerial review "to ensure it is best able to serve the needs of the local industry and community".

In an ideal world, the commission would long ago have sought advice from one of the most successful filmmakers in history, especially since he is just round the corner. But that would have required some pride-swallowing - and a corporate decision to feed the hand that had bitten it.

Jackson, it will be remembered, has occasionally been a trenchant critic of the commission. He even publicly "disinvited" its then chief executive Ruth Harley and chairman Barrie Everard to the Wellington premiere of part two of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, calling them "self-serving bureaucrats".

Jackson's anger at the time related to the way the commission had dealt with the liquidation of a production company that owed him money, so there was plainly an element of self-interest in his comments. But he had previously lambasted the culture of the commission, a state- and lottery-funded organisation that pays for the development and production of homegrown cinema.

Jackson expressed views that were widely shared within the industry. John Barnett, the chief executive of South Pacific Pictures, the country's most prolific producer of film and television, has repeatedly castigated the commission, of which he has been a member, for its complacency, lack of transparency and resistance to criticism. Many other filmmakers maintain a public silence for fear of imperilling their applications for funding but privately say the commission is monolithic and bureaucratic, and that it emphasises relationships with producers rather than creative filmmakers.

A good deal of the concern had to do with Harley, whose relationship with the creative sector could most charitably be described as uneasy. She resigned last year to take up the top job at the Australian commission equivalent, Screen Australia. Her replacement, Graeme Mason, a native Australian, has been in the job barely two months, so the timing of the review is good.

The terms of reference are a mixture of bureaucratspeak ("facilitative role"; "cultural content objectives") and noble-sounding phraseology, which are unlikely to bog down Jackson, who is a plain speaker and a man of action. The fact that he is charged with working out how "active industry professionals" can be more involved in setting the commission's direction is heartening. And it is something he has plainly taken on board: pointedly, he has said he will consult local filmmakers, "so the review reflects the thoughts and opinions of the writers, producers and directors the commission was created to support".

But before Jackson, his co-reviewer, David Court, head of screen business at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, and those who act on their recommendations can work out how best to achieve the commission's objectives, those objectives must be defined. To the very small extent - its current budget is barely $25 million - that the commission can assist film development or production, how should it target its spending? On nurturing new talent? On backing commercial projects that might (but probably won't; it's a high-risk business, even in Hollywood) turn a profit? On telling our stories to ourselves?

Assuming that the review is sincerely motivated and that the Government is not looking for findings that will justify later funding cuts, Jackson's presence is encouraging. The prolific moviemaker is not notably short of things to do, so he plainly thinks he has something to offer and will tackle the review with the passion and vision that are his trademarks.

The commission is now more than 30 years old: as John Barnett remarked this week, when it was established movies screened with intermissions and no one used the word "digital". It is high time for a rethink - and there is no better man to be doing the rethinking.