An argument about the exportation of NZ film and TV

It was meant to be the great 'Argument about the exportation of NZ film and TV' live at the Cloud on Auckland's Waterfront on Saturday.

But it was not to be - silenced by a last minute cancellation and noise from the 'RWC finals' (how do you have a serious/quirky panel discussion amongst rugby mad crowds?).

For those of you left hanging with burning questions about 'the exportation of NZ film and TV' - luckily host Oliver Driver had sent some warm-up TBI Qs for panelists - actor Robyn Malcolm, network executive Andrew Szusterman and entertainment lawyer Tim Riley.

Plus we threw in 'The Big Idea 10th birthday' questions about the past, present and future for film and TV in NZ.

Pity the discussion didn't happen in 'real-life', but these warm-up QnAs were too good not to share and hopefully continue the conversation online?!

Robyn, Andrew and Tim were to be joined by Julie Christie (producer), James Griffin (writer), Imogen Johnson (agent).

* * *

• Are we as successful in the Film and Television industries as we should be?

Robyn Malcolm: That’s a very general question.

From an actors perspective I would interpret that question as “Are actors in work and is the work of a good quality?” The answer to that question is "Yes" a percentage of actors are in work at any given time, which is how it is in all territories around the world. The work actors are involved in is mostly of a good quality. It also seems to be directly related, of course, to how things are economically in NZ. This year there have been a good handful of television series, TV films and low budget features to employ actors, plus a small number with roles in international movies such as The Hobbit and Mister Pip. For a country of 4 million I’d say from this perspective it is pretty successful in terms of its employment of actors.

If we interpreted the question, again from an actors perspective, to mean “are we successfully running a industry which supports the craft of the actor as much as it could?” The answer to that is that we are getting there. There are areas within the internal workings of the industry which could be addressed to improve things for actors, and crew for that matter.

There are a number of short and long term courses within the industry for practitioners to improve their craft, and there could always be more of these. In my view, in particular, the disciplines of writing and directing.. These areas need more support financially and in training.

One of the areas which obviously compromises work here, is simply how small we are as a country and as a consequence the relatively low level of money available from either up front funding or box office. The trickle down from this seems to be that projects must as a rule be commercially risk averse which in my view often narrows the playing field in terms of the work created.

Andrew Szusterman: Sure, for our size we make incredibly successful TV shows and films for both the local and international markets, NZ TV shows more often than not out rate their international counterparts.

Tim Riley: I don’t think we are as successful as we could be. But it’s a deceptively complex question. First we have to define what we mean by “success”. And then we have to have a strategy to achieve that. Part of the problem in my view is that we don’t really know what we are trying to achieve in the Film and Television industries. There are a number of competing interests that don’t necessarily gel. NZOA and NZFC want to tell our stories, producers want to make a living, networks want to sell advertising.

• Why are we not able to sell more of our NZ TV formats overseas?

Robyn Malcolm: Perhaps the question to ask is what is it about the ones that do sell? We sell a few here and there. I imagine it's to do with originality of idea and success at home. Globally there is some extraordinary and highly sophisticated television out there. To compete at that level takes some doing. We are still relatively young as an industry and are probably still followers rather than leaders.

Andrew Szusterman: I don’t think we can look at it as a territory issue anymore. It’s a global market for all industries, just like the music business we have successes on the international stage and really do perform well considering the size of our industry. The format business is highly competitive and lucrative which is what makes it difficult, not our location.

Tim Riley: It’s a very tough and competitive industry. And with very high value products. We are competing with participants from vastly larger and more commercially driven industries. Getting to the markets is expensive. Before a format comes a successful TV show, so you also have to look at our local conditions and how many shows are being commissioned and broadcast, and the quality of them. In any case, I would imagine we do reasonably well given our small size.

• We seem to be over the cultural cringe when it comes to our music and we are getting there with television but film (unless it's LOTR or Boy) seems to still be unpopular at the box office, why do you think this is?

Robyn Malcolm: Two things spring to mind: numbers of people here ie: we are such a small country and I suspect the numbers of people who go to the cinema is dropping as prices increase and DVDs become cheaper. That said I guess the number of really really good internationally compeditative NZ movies is not high and that is reflected in box office. When the films are good the audiences do turn up. The problem is perhaps more with the “art-house” movie. We make some excellent more low budget, less commercial films but they suffer simply because the audience is so small for them and they are competing for this small audience attentions on an international platform which is a big ask.

Andrew Szusterman: I don’t think it’s a cultural cringe issue at all anymore for any of our entertainment industries, be it Music, TV or Film. It’s been a long-time since I’ve heard anyone bag any of our shows or artists for being from NZ. It’s a numbers game really, not everything can be a success, so unfair to compare film with TV production or music. There are less films produced, so less hit the box office. The audience don’t care where it comes from, as long as it’s entertaining. Full believer in that.

Tim Riley: Peter Jackson was reported as saying that the last decade has been the worst in our history with regard to the quality of films being made, so that has to be considered. But also, maybe our audience expectations are wrong. Not every good film will have a massive audience. We are a small population with a lot of options at the cinema. When making a film we need to be realistic about who our audience is for that film, and make sure we deliver to them. It’s ok to be discerning. You can’t please everyone. Some films are crowd pleasers some are not. So I’m not sure I agree with the premise. I don’t see a lot of cultural cringe about our movies, I just see some films that don’t have wide appeal. It’s another debate whether that’s a good or a bad thing.

• Do you think the government is doing what it needs to in order for NZ TV and Film to be as successful as it could be and if not what should it do?

Robyn Malcolm: The government is looking at changing some immigration laws around the employment of international crew, directors and actors. This will allow more international practitioners into NZ to work in jobs Kiwi practitioners could do. This will cripple our industry over time and absolutely shouldn’t happen.

Of course the industry could always do with more money.

Of course the government could support policies allowing actors and crew to collectively bargain and work under industry standard contracts.

Andrew Szusterman: Well it’s a tough time to invest in the arts really isn’t it, so our funding bodies are playing with pretty much the same investment capital that they’ve had since the last Labour Govt, so not a lot of room for innovation at present. Should funding increase we need to keep the cash for local film and TV productions. The content, if good, will move itself. It’s not about international trade shows, that’s end process, local investment is the key.

Tim Riley: I think there’s a lot of confusion about just what the government’s role is or should be.

Looking at television, I think the government’s final withdrawal from any semblance of public service broadcasting (discontinuing TVNZ7 and ending the TVNZ charter) is a mistake. In my view, this should be the core role of government in TV. The reason governments got involved in the television industry in the first place was out of a recognition that television is a unique medium that can play a crucial role in uniting communities, facilitating communication, and helping to create better informed and more productive population. It wasn’t to fund commercial television production.

The New Zealand on Air model works well in some respects but it is definitely not public service broadcasting. The networks will only commission shows that have commercial appeal and NZOA will only fund shows with a broadcasting commitment. So we, the taxpayers, end up funding television that does not meet the requirements of public service broadcasting. Other than to meet public service broadcasting objectives, I am not sure what the purpose of taxpayers funding television production is. The more the public service component disappears from the picture, the more we end up with just a subsidised commercial production and broadcasting industry. From an economic point of view subsidies are not desirable as they create distortions in the market. So I think we have to be very wary of that happening.

I think another problem that any funding strategy needs to address is the fractured nature of the production industry. There are a large number of small businesses, and very few medium to large ones (similar to the wine industry a decade or so ago). There are many small production companies with no real business structure and sense of continuity that live from one production grant to the next. An industry with too many small players is inefficient and not sustainable. The funding strategy should include considerations of how to change this and create an industry that has more links and fewer players.

I think similar considerations apply with respect to film funding. We have to be very clear about why we are funding film production. The overriding objective should not be to get a commercial return as that is unrealistic and puts the taxpayer in the position of a commercial investor in a very risky industry. It should be about telling NZ stories for our benefit.

I am not sure how effective and useful the rebate schemes for foreign productions taking place here are. We invest a lot of public money in films like the Hobbit and Avatar (I think we spent about the same on Avatar as NZOA spend on television production in a year). Are we certain that we are achieving sufficient benefits from those investments?

With respect to exploitation, I believe the government should facilitate access to overseas markets and related activities but otherwise should stay out of the commercial exploitation of TV and film.

• The Big Idea 10th Birthday questions

What changes have you noticed in the creative sector (Film and TV in NZ) in the past 10 years?

Robyn Malcolm:  I’ve noticed particular in television. There is more of it and its of a better quality. I’m not sure I can say the same for Film.

Andrew Szusterman: The growth of our local industry and the continued acceptance of our content by both local and international audiences. More local Television is being made of higher quality and with better ratings to boot. The adaptation of international formats continues to yield positive results with shows like New Zealand’s Next Top Model and Masterchef leading the way.

Tim Riley: In television, the increasing predominance of reality TV, and the corresponding importance of format sales as a mode of exploitation of television productions. Big Brother, was first screened by Endemol in 1999 and there has subsequently been an explosion of this type of production.

The progressive dismantling of TVNZ’s public service broadcasting role, as discussed above, has been another feature of the decade.

During this decade we have seen the rise of new media and the challenges (and opportunities) this has presented. The internet and digital technology has really transformed the music production and distribution industries, but the changes have not been as dramatic in film and TV. The demise of terrestrial television broadcasting in the face of IPTV and other internet platforms is often predicted, but hasn’t happened yet…

Also the growth of Sky and subscriber TV generally has been another significant feature of the decade, as well as the launching of Maori TV.

• What are some of the opportunities and challenges for the next decade?

Robyn Malcolm: Galvanizing our local industry. Keeping it alive and healthy despite an ongoing and potentially severe recession. Getting our work more internationally compeditative despite our small population. Protecting our own industry from becoming a small out post of employment for bigger territories. Developing further our unique identity as South Pacific story tellers. Up-skilling our practitioners so that more can compete internationally.

Andrew Szusterman: Protecting our content from piracy and the continued integration of advertisers into production. Aggregation of content is the key to success in the next 10 years.

Tim Riley: A major challenge is what is going to happen to free-to-air television. Both major networks are struggling. There is competition with other media for advertising dollars. This flows through the whole industry as the networks are forced to play it safe with commissioning and programming decisions and there is obviously less broadcaster money for production. So expensive locally made drama get hits hardest in that environment, and also long form current affairs shows. With no public broadcasting component anymore we become slaves to the mediocrity of pure ratings driven television. To quote a phrase from Trainspotting, more “mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows” (sounds best with an exaggerated Scottish accent). In fact I think one of the greatest threats to our television production industry is the demise of public television. NZOA only fund what the networks want, and they don’t want anything edgy or risky, so there is a corresponding stifling of innovation and creativity amongst producers.

For film and television, an opportunity and a challenge, is how to respond to the demands of a highly technologically savvy and networked society who are becoming less and less patient with the old distribution models. We are connected and communicating every day in real time with people throughout the world, discussing film, music, TV amongst other things. Why should we in NZ wait months before seeing a US released film? Why should we be months or years behind in television series? We have to respond to this or lose money through illegal downloading. This of course, is really a major opportunity for media companies. A huge, connected potential audience, talking about your product, and available to be harnessed. And of course, the internet presents opportunities for new cheaper and faster distribution models.

The internet is also a big opportunity for producers. The type of guerrilla film making practiced by the likes of Ant Timpson comes into its own in this environment. For example, one of Ant Timpson’s current projects, ABCS of Death is a feature film project using 26 directors in a number of different countries with the production entity here and a production funder/distributor in New York and with an online competition as a key initial publicity driver (as well as providing some content for the film). This type of film making thrives in the internet environment.

* * *

• An argument about the exportation of NZ Film and Television was hosted by The Enemy Ltd, a company that trades on ideas, co-directed by Dean Cornish, Nick Dwyer and Oliver Driver.
  
  New Zealand Film and Television is taking the world by storm, we are selling formats, exporting television shows and producing some of the largest and most successful films in the world. However are we doing enough? Is Hollywood exploiting us? Can we hold our own on the world stage?