Critique – Film Seminar
Reel Crimes
The fourth of the Wanted Seminar Series, held on Friday the 19th of September.
Content
The guests would have benefited from a casual warm up conversation led by the host to give them a more through introduction rather than immediately start with the serious questions about funding. There was incorrect information included in the introducing for Veronica Gleeson, which was unprofessional and should have been picked up earlier.
The dynamic between the guests was great; I really enjoyed the banter between the different perspectives of the filmmaking industry from the funding body, the manager and the director. There was tension between Gleeson and Tass in regards to funding, which seemed to be an accurate representation of what might go on behind closed doors between passionate directors and funding bodies such as Screen Australia.
Nadia Tass was a down to earth, passionate and inspirational guest, she emphasised the importance of having something to say, being disciplined and making the film for the amount that can raised. I adored Tass’ story about finding funding for Malcolm, she knew she was working in comedy and so she had to find a stock broker with a sense of humour. She approached him with a remote control car and a fake gun threatening to shoot his balls off if he refused to give her the money. This radical method proved the extent to which she has gone to get projects up and running. It’s made me think that doing something radical may be what’s needed to break it in the film making industry, although I don’t think I would have the guts to pull that off. All of Tass’ anecdotes about breaking the rules to make her films happen were delightful.
Trevor Blainey commented on the necessity for a filmmaker to have an enormous passion for their vision and then the ability to be able to execute that vision, which is where a lot of people make a mistake. He also discussed the importance of knowing the film’s demographic.
Veronica Gleeson warned us not to hate the funding facilities, not to whine or moan when we don’t get what we want. She simply stated that we couldn’t be paid for something we’re not very good at yet and that we’re not owed a chance that we have to prove that we can tell a story through experience. Gleeson finished by saying that it is hard, but it’s so much sweeter at the other end. I enjoyed her honest opinion and I agree, we can’t expect to be handed money easily.
I loved the discussion about cutting corners as I hope to get into film production myself and I find problem solving really interesting and rewarding when it works out. Tass discussed the importance of discovering the essence of what the scene is and then finding a clever and cheap way to pull it off. She advised that these constraints can make you better, which I believe.
I left the seminar with a better understanding of the purpose of Screen Australia and how to approach funding my projects, so the content was extremely relevant and informative.
Approach
The panel idea was nice, it reminded me of a Q&A at a film festival, although the questions didn’t seem very well throughout. I sensed they were under prepared in formulating a structure. The entertaining guests made up for this element of the seminar.
Theme
I enjoyed the pun in the title, but the filmmaking theme wasn’t present throughout the seminar itself, besides the red carpet. They could have emphasised the theme through the use of props and incorporated it into the choice of food.
Staging
The hissing audio issue was distracting and detrimental to the content for the first half of the seminar because I was only able to hear parts of the conversation. The red carpet, raised platform and panel looked effective. There were far too many unnecessary lights at the back of the room and too many cameras. More thought could have gone into this aspect of the seminar.
Promotion
It did not appear as though much effort went into the promotion of this seminar. The video consisted of found footage (from other films) and was unprofessionally edited together with poor titles and tag lines, where as all other groups had shot and photographed their own content. The poster was plain and there were very minimal updates on the Facebook page, so overall it wasn’t very effective.
Grade: 60
