Beyond the modular film school : Australian film and television schools and their digital transitions

In this chapter we will describe the contemporary variety of practice-oriented training institutions in Australia. We will examine the different ways in which public and private providers are managing the challenges of digitization and convergence. We will consider the logics governing film education this mix of providers pulls into focus, and we will outline some of the challenges providers face in educating, (re)training, and preparing their graduates for life and work beyond the film school. These challenges highlight questions about the accountabilities and responsibilities of practice-oriented film education institutions. This chapter begins with an introductory section that outlines these logics and questions. It explores some of the tensions and dynamics within the spectrum of issues through which we can understand film schools. The chapter then goes on briefly to describe the multifaceted training landscape in Australia, before profiling the leading public provider, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS), as well as the other leading public providers the Victorian College of the Arts, and the Griffith Film School. It concludes with a short section on film education in primary and secondary schools as the education sector prepares for the implementation of a national curriculum in which ‘media arts’ has a new centrality.

Media log : a guide to film, television, and radio programs supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Public Programs, Humanities Projects in Media.

Shipping list no.: 93-0162-P.

Alternative primary sources for studying Australian television history : an annotated list of online private collections

It is possible to write many different histories of Australian television, and these different histories draw on different primary sources. The ABC of Drama, for example, draws on the ABC Document Archives (Jacka 1991). Most of the information for Images and Industry: television drama production in Australia is taken from original interviews with television production staff (Moran 1985). Ending the Affair, as well as archival work, draws on ‘over ten years of watching … Australian television current affairs’ (Turner 2005, xiii). Moran’s Guide to Australian TV Series draws exhaustively on extant archives: the ABC Document Archives, material sourced through the ABC Drama department, the Australian Film Commission, the library of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, and the Australian Film Institute (Moran 1993, xi)...

The Australian screen producer: Understanding screen production cultures in a period of industrial transition [Abstract]

The screen producer plays a vital role in shaping the creative, commercial and entrepreneurial dimensions of production. And yet Australian film history is most often presented as an appreciation of film directors or an examination of industrial governance measures. On the other hand, public funding agencies in Australia have, for the most part, supported independent film and television production as a producer-led, or producer-as-auteur production system, and as such the producer has played a critical role in shaping the broader independent production landscape. In recent years, fundamental changes to distribution and consumption practices have had a major impact on the nature of screen production. Screen producers are increasingly migrating into emerging online, transmedia and cross-media production; generating both opportunities and challenges for traditional producers. However, the production cultures and motivations of producers operating in these emergent spaces remain poorly understood. This presentation will focus on the largely unremarked role of the producer in Australian screen scholarship. It will explore the ways in which the practice of screen producing is evolving and the migratory pathways of traditional producers moving into digital/new media production. The presentation’s primary findings are drawn from the 2011 Australian Screen Producer Survey; a national study of the activities of Australian screen producers conducted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), Queensland University of Technology, with support from the Centre for Screen Business /Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS). From longitudinal analysis, the presentation will compare and contrast data from the 2009 and 2011 survey across film, television, corporate production and new media industry segments. In so doing the presentation will delineate the practices, attitudes, strategies, and aspirations of screen producers operating in a convergent digital media marketplace and suggest ways forward for a more industrially cognisant approach to screen history.

2nd Australian producer survey 2012 : understanding Australian screen content producers : wave 2

This report presents the top-line findings of the Australian Screen Producer survey conducted in December 2011. The report was prepared by Bergent Research and commissioned by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), Queensland University of Technology, with assistance from the Centre for Screen Business, Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS). The 2011 producer survey was a national study of the demographics, motivations, sentiments and activities of screen producers across four industry segments: Film, Television, Commercial and Digital Media. This survey is the second Australian Screen Producer survey and builds upon research undertaken in the Australian Screen Content Producer Survey conducted in 2009. The 2011 study is referred to in this report as Wave 2 and the 2009 study is referred to as Wave 1.

The Australian screen producer in transition

The role of the screen producer is ramifying. Not only are there numerous producer categories, but the screen producer function is also found on a continuum across film, television, advertising, corporate video, and the burgeoning digital media sector. In recent years, fundamental changes to distribution and consumption practices and technologies should have had a correlate impact on screen production practices and on the role of existing screen producers. At the same time, new and recent producers are learning and practicing their craft in a field that has already been transformed by digitisation and media convergence. Our analysis of the work, experience and outlook of screen producers in this chapter is based on data collected in the Australian Screen Producer Survey (ASPS), a nation-wide survey conducted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, the media marketing firm Bergent Research, and the Centre for Screen Business at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS) in 2008/09 and 2011. We analyse the results to better understand the practice of screen production in a period of industry transition, and to recognise the persistence of established production cultures that serve to distinguish different industry sectors.

Australian Screen Producers Survey : online interactive

There is growing scholarly interest in the everyday work undertaken by screen producers in part prompted by disciplinary shifts (the ‘material turn’, the rise of creative industries research) and in part by major transformations in the business of media production and consumption in recent years. However, the production cultures and motivations of screen producers, particularly those working in emergent online and convergent media markets, remain poorly understood. The 2012 Australian Screen Producer survey, building upon research undertaken in the Australian Screen Content Producer Survey conducted in 2009, was a nation-wide survey-based study of screen content producers working in four industry segments: film, television, corporate and new media production. The broad objectives of the 2012 Australian Producer Survey study were to: • Provide deeper and more detailed analysis into the nature of digital media producers and their practices and how these findings compare to the practices of established screen media producers; • Interrogate issues around the pace of industry change, industry sentiment and how producers are adapting to a changing marketplace; and • Offer insight into the transitional pathways of established media producers into production for digital media markets. The Australian Screen Producer Survey Online Interactive provides users (principally filmmakers, scholars and policymakers) with direct access to raw survey data through an interactive website that allows them to customise queries according to particular interests. The Online Interactive therefore provides customisable findings – unlike ‘static’ research outputs – delineating the practices, attitudes, strategies, and aspirations of screen producers working in feature film, television and corporate production as well as those operating in an increasingly convergent digital media marketplace. The survey was developed by researchers at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), Queensland University of Technology, Deakin University, the Centre for Screen Business at Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS) and was undertaken in association with Bergent Research. The Online Interactive website (http://screenproducersurvey.com/) was developed with support from the Centre for Memory Imagination and Invention (CMII).

Australia’s film industry owes a debt to Gough Whitlam

Filmmakers and audiences – indeed Australian arts and screen culture more broadly – owe a deep debt of gratitude to Gough Whitlam and the government he led. Although the foundations had been laid by Whitlam’s predecessors John Gorton and Billy McMahon, the Australian film revival of the 1970s only really took shape after Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972...

Review : "Birthday Boy" -- Sejong Park

Synopsis and review of Sejong Park's film Birthday Boy. Includes credits. Birthday Boy has won over 40 awards at film festivals around the world including Best Animated Short at the prestigious SIGGRAPH Computer Animation Festival in 2004 which qualified the film for the 2005 Academy Awards even before Park and fellow students had graduated from the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS). It was subsequently nominated for the Oscar for Best Animated Short Film, losing to another extraordinary short, Chris Landreth’s tribute to pioneering Canadian animator Ryan Larkin, Ryan. Other awards include the Prix Jean-Luc Xiberras at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in 2005 (which had a special focus on Korea) and Best Short Animation at the 2005 BAFTA awards. It has screened at over 100 film festivals around the world, and is the most awarded film in the almost forty year history of the AFTRS...

Dutch tilt, Aussie auteur : the films of Rolf de Heer. 2nd ed.

Dutch-born Australian director, Rolf de Heer, is Australia's most successful and unpredictable film-maker, with thirteen feature films of widely varying style and genre to his name. Arising from the author's 2006 - 2009 PhD research at the Queensland University of Technology (which focussed on the psychoanalytic use of sound in his films), and a fixed term Research Fellowship at the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra, Australia, "Dutch Tilt, Aussie Auteur: The Films of Rolf de Heer" was first published in 2009 by VDM in Saarbrucken, Germany. This second edition addresses de Heer's additional film-making since 2009, and as with the first edition, is an auteur analysis of the thirteen feature films he has directed (and mostly written and produced). The book explores the theoretical instability of the concept of auteurism and concludes that there is a signature world view to be detected in his oeuvre, and that de Heer (quite possibly unconsciously) promotes unlikely protagonists who are non-hyper masculine, child-like and nurturing, as opposed to the typical Hollywood hero who is macho, exploitative and hyper masculine. Rolf de Heer was born in Heemskerk, Holland, in 1951 and migrated to Australia with his family in 1959. He spent seven years working for the ABC before gaining entry to Australia's Film, Television and Radio School, where he studied Producing and Directing. From his debut feature film after graduating, the children's story about the restoration of a Tiger Moth biplane, "Tail of a Tiger" (1984) to his breakout cult sensation "Bad Boy Bubby" (1993) which "tore Venice [Film Festival] apart" to the first Aboriginal Australian language film "Ten Canoes" (2006) which scooped the pool at the Australian Film Institute awards, de Heer has consistently proven himself unpredictable. This analysis of his widely disparate films, however, suggests that Australia's most innovative film-maker has a signature pre-occupation with giving a voice to marginalised, non-hyper masculine protagonists. Demonstrating a propensity to write and direct in a European-like style, his 'Dutch tilt' is very much not Hollywood, but is nevertheless representative of a typically Aussie world-view.

Australian Television and International Mediascapes

This book addresses current debates about globalization and culture by tracing the emergence of Australia as a significant exporter of television to the world market. The authors investigate why Australian programs have found international popularity. The book describes the Australian industry and the international television marketplace. It also examines the impact of Australian programs on the television cultures of the importing countries. The authors outline policy implications and speculate on future directions of Australian television.

Broadcasting digital stories on Australian community television : the Digistories Anthology

Community-based arts and media movements have been intsrumental in building population-wide creative capacity for cultural development, social participation and social transformation in many parts of the world. Digital storytelling is a form of media practice that was pioneered in the United States at the intersection of these movements. It is described here as a ‘co-creative’ media production method. This description aims to differentiate the approaches to collaborative content creation that are used in community cultural development (CCD) and community media movements from those valued in professional and consumer modes of media production. Yet, the products of co-creative practices, such as digital stories, do not circulate widely through existing media networks or through the newer social media networks that Australian CCD and community media movements anticipated by at least twenty years. The complex politics of story ownership are one of a number of factors that often render ‘publication’ a secondary consideration in the making of digital stories. The possibility of ‘downstream’ use and re-use of stories in other networks is not usually considered in initial planning and development processes. As landmark projects such as Capture Wales indicate, even where stories are made for broadcast outcomes, television can be a problematic window for exhibiting digital stories. Scepticism about the brave new world of reality television and user generated content also circulates in digital storytelling networks, especially when it comes to ethical concerns for managing the risks of harm associated with widespread distribution of digital stories to indiscriminate publics. This publication reports on a collaborative action research project that took a closer look at some of the constraints relating to the problems of re-purposing digital stories for television. It focussed on ‘best practice’ for managing the risks of harm to storytellers in the process of re-purposing digital stories for broadcast on community television.

Queensland's film culture: The challenges of local film distribution and festival exhibition

Organisations at the centre of the state’s industry, such as Screen Queensland, have undergone substantial and ongoing changes in the last five years. Other organisations funded by Screen Queensland, such as QPIX, Queensland’s only film development centre, have recently closed. The Brisbane International Film Festival has been restructured to become the Brisbane Asia Pacific Film Festival as of 2014. In an uncertain industry currently characterised by limited funding and diminishing support structures, local emerging filmmakers require significant initiatives and a sophisticated understanding of how to best utilise fledgling distribution models as part of a tailored strategy for their content. This essay includes interviews with emerging Brisbane filmmakers who have used a combination of traditional and contemporary approaches to exhibition and distribution thus far in their careers. It argues that for these filmmakers, while film festivals do function as crucial platforms for exposure, in the current digital market they cannot be relied upon as the only platform in securing further mainstream or commercial release. They can, however, be incorporated into an alternative distribution model that shows awareness of the contemporary situation in Australia. The research findings are arguably indicative of the challenges faced by filmmakers statewide, and suggest that further support strategies need to be considered to revive Queensland’s film culture and provide immediate support for emerging filmmakers. Queensland’s film sector is currently in the midst of significant change.

YouTube versus the national film and sound archive: Which is the more useful resource for historians of Australian television?

This article compares YouTube and the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) as resources for television historians interested in viewing old Australian television programs. The author searched for seventeen important television programs, identified in a previous research project, to compare what was available in the two archives and how easy it was to find. The analysis focused on differences in curatorial practices of accessioning and cataloguing. NFSA is stronger in current affairs and older programs, while YouTube is stronger in game shows and lifestyle programs. YouTube is stronger than the NFSA on “human interest” material—births, marriages, and deaths. YouTube accessioning more strongly accords with popular histories of Australian television. Both NFSA and YouTube offer complete episodes of programs, while YouTube also offers many short clips of “moments.” YouTube has more surprising pieces of rare ephemera. YouTube cataloguing is more reliable than that of the NFSA, with fewer broken links. The YouTube metadata can be searched more intuitively. The NFSA generally provides more useful reference information about production and broadcast dates.

Community participation in the development of digital radio : the Australian experience

The participation of the community broadcasting sector in the development of digital radio provides a potentially valuable opportunity for non-market, end user-driven experimentation in the development of these new services in Australia. However this development path is constrained by various factors, some of which are specific to the community broadcasting sector and others that are generic to the broader media and communications policy, industrial and technological context. This paper filters recent developments in digital radio policy and implementation through the perspectives of community radio stakeholders, obtained through interviews, to describe and analyse these constraints. The early stage of digital community radio presented here is intended as a baseline for tracking the development of the sector as digital radio broadcasting develops. We also draw upon insights from scholarly debates about citizens media and participatory culture to identify and discuss two sets of opportunities for social benefit that are enabled by the inclusion of community radio in digital radio service development. The first arises from community broadcasting’s involvement in the propagation of the multi-literacies that drive new digital economies, not only through formal and informal multi- and trans-media training, but also in the ‘co-creative’ forms of collaborative and participatory media production that are fostered in the sector. The second arises from the fact that community radio is uniquely placed — indeed charged with the responsibility — to facilitate social participation in the design and operation of media institutions themselves, not just their service outputs.