Last week, FTI's sister organisation, Metroscreen, held a panel discussion titled 'Oz Films vs Oz Audiences'. Margaret Pomeranz felt that Australian audiences were unsupportive of local content and the reason they didn't see Australian films at the cinema was laziness. I strongly disagree with this. I am extremely passionate about film. I am firmly dedicated to building a sustainable industry in Western Australia. BUT. I don't have a lot of time. And these days I rarely go to the cinema to see films with a rating higher than PG. Even though I love film, I really only love GOOD films. And I want to know whether something is good BEFORE I get a babysitter and spend the equivalent of a nice pub meal.

Unfortunately, most Australian films don't have big marketing budgets. Or have great trailers. And most importantly, don't stay on at the cinema long enough to build an audience.

"The Australian industry needs to decide if it is a cultural or commercial industry" spouted Antony Guinnane from SPAA. The overwhelming response from the audience was 'why not both?' I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I think that there is a definite need for film to reflect our culture. But if no one wants to see it, what's the point?

I'd love to hear from you, our members, on why Australian films suffer at the box office. How can we generate better audience response? Are films art or business?

Metro Screen (the NSW Screen Development Australia organisation like FTI, which is the WA Screen Development Australia organisation) are going run a series of events in 2010 around the key points raised at the forum to further explore and articulate the issues facing Australian films. I think we can start discussing these prior to the events.

Check the links to the podcast, vodcast and photos. To keep the conversation going online use twitter and the hash tag #OZFILM

KEY POINTS
A) Filmmakers should focus on ‘making our myths’ as well as ‘telling our stories’: the difference is scale, dynamics and ownership.

B) We should debate and resolve the question of a relevant and sustainable benchmark for assessing filmmaking outcomes; we can have both ‘cultural remit’ and ‘box office success’ as measures, but not in a confused blend.

C) The industry to lobby Government to lower the eligibility for the producer offset production rebate below the current level of $1 million to enable emerging, entrepreneurial filmmakers to access support.

D) What does ‘development funding’ really mean? eg from the focus on the 'draft by draft' script evaluation through to industry wide strategies.

E) Examine the role of distribution and marketing. Can things be done differently to better connect with target audiences and ensure local films get a better chance not only at the box office but other windows of ongoing exploitation?

F) Embrace the fact that TV, DVDs, online and portable media have an impact on “film”– understand this and capitalise on it.

G) Does “Australian Film” need to be re-branded with its own marketing campaign? A number of countries have come up with practical solutions to build national audiences. Should we do the same for “Australian Film”?

MP3 audio podcast: network@metroscreen.org.au
vodcast: http://vimeo.com/7318151
social pics from the event: http://www.metroscreen.org.au/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=27894

The Oz Films vs Oz Audience forum included:
Moderator: Andrew Urban- Editor, Urban Cinefile
Introduced by: Liz Watts - Producer, Porchlight Films
Dr Ruth Harley - CEO Screen Australia
Troy Lum – Managing Director of Hopscotch Films
Margaret Pomeranz - At The Movies ABC
Garry Maddox – Journalist, Sydney Morning Herald
Susan Hoerlein - Publicity & Promotions Manager, Tsuki Marketing and PR Agency
Rachel Ward - Actor/Writer/Director - first feature 'Beautiful Kate'
Antony I. Ginnane - President of SPAA [Screen Producers Association of Australia]

Martin Walsh blogs for SPAA in response to 'Oz Films vs Oz Audiences':

"As a marketer who lives, breathes and dies around my skills and ability to understand Joe Average consumer and in this case the average moviegoer, I get totally fed up and angry at the pretentious and elitist attitude actively demonstrated by some filmmakers and commentators towards the intelligence and tastes of the average person who pays to see movies. It's their money and they'll choose what they like & don't like!"

Martin sites ultra-low budget film ‘Paranormal Activity’ making these points in his example:

1. The size of the budget isn't necessarily a panacea for our problems - at the end of the day you still need a good, entertaining story that's told well.
2. They got the marketing right - knew their audience, embraced digital & traditional marketing
3. They turned the film & artform into an experience

It's a great case study in film marketing, audiences & exhibition: http://www.spaaconferencenetwork.com/blog/future-filmmaking-seizing-back-control-six-pillars-cinema

Martin ties this example into what Ted Hope has called the Six Pillars of Cinema saying that this is the same concept proposed in Martin's other SPAA blog post ‘Can Australian Films Make Money?’

"Hope, whose credits include 21 Grams and In The Bedroom, said that producers had, for too long, been only concerned with “content and production”, but that they should be embracing what he called the “other four pillars supporting the film industry” - discovery, promotion, participation and presentation.”

I particularly like these points made by Hope:

1. By removing the constrictions of the where and when we encounter cinema, it becomes a greater influence on our lives.
2. By spreading the opportunities we have to engage, both back and forth, across multiple platforms, cinema is no longer an impulsive location-centric activity, but an ever-present and consistent choice.
3. By changing from a monologue to a dialogue with our audiences, we return ownership to the commons and gain back loyalty in exchange.

Read it all here http://www.spaaconferencenetwork.com/blog/future-filmmaking-seizing-back-control-six-pillars-cinema