Next Generation ‘Filmmaking’: New Markets, New Methods and New Business Models

Digital production and distribution technologies may create new opportunities for filmmaking in Australia. A culture of new approaches to filmmaking is emerging driven by ‘next generation filmmakers’ who are willing to consider new business models: from online web series to short films produced for mobile phones. At the same time cultural representation itself is transforming within an interactive, social media driven environment. Yet there is very little research into next generation filmmaking. The aim of this paper is to scope and discuss three key aspects of next generation filmmaking, namely: digital trends in film distribution and marketing; processes and strategies of ‘next generation’ filmmakers; and case studies of viable next generation business models and filmmaking practices. We conclude with a brief examination of the implications for media and cultural policy which suggests the future possibility of a rapprochement between creative industries discourse and cultural policy.

Next generation filmmaking and media arts in the Australian curriculum

Media education has been included as a mandatory component of the Arts within the new Australian national curriculum, which purports to set out a framework that encompasses core knowledge, understanding and skills critical to twenty-first century learning. This will position Australia as the only country to require media education as a compulsory aspect of Arts education and one of the first to implement a sequenced national media education curriculum from pre-school to year 12. A broad framework has been outlined for what the Media Arts curriculum will encompass and in this article we investigate the extent to which this framework is likely to provide media educators the opportunity to broaden the scope of established media education to effectively educate students about the ever-changing nature of media ecologies. The article outlines significant shifts occurring in the film and television industries to identify the types of knowledge students may need to understand these changes. This is followed by an analysis of existing state-based media curricula offered at years 11 and 12 in Australia to demonstrate that the concepts of institutions and audiences are not currently approached in ways that reflect contemporary media ecologies.

From Aussiewood Movies to Guerrilla Filmmaking: Independent Filmmaking and Contemporary Australian Cinema

Independent filmmaking within the context of Australian cinema is a multifaceted subject. In comparison to the United States, where production can be characterised as bifurcated between major studio production and so-called “indie” or independent production without the backing of the majors, since the 1970s and until recently the vast majority of Australian feature film production has been independent filmmaking. Like most so-called national cinemas, most Australian movies are supported by both direct and indirect public subvention administered by state and federal government funding bodies, and it could be argued that filmmakers are, to a certain degree, “dependent” on official mandates. As this chapter demonstrates national production slates are subjected to budget restraints and cut-backs, official cultural policies (for example pursuing international co-productions and local content quotas) and shifts in policy directions among others. Therefore, within the context of Australian cinema, feature film production operating outside the public funding system could be understood as “independent”. However, as is the case for most English-language national cinemas, independence has long been defined in terms of autonomy from Hollywood, and – as alluded to above – as Australia becomes more dependent upon international inputs into production, higher budget movies are becoming less independent from Hollywood. As such, this chapter argues that independence in Australian cinema can be viewed as having two poles: independence from direct government funding and independence from Hollywood studios. With a specific focus on industry and policy contexts, this chapter explores key issues that constitute independence for Australian cinema. In so doing it examines the production characteristics of four primary domains of contemporary independent filmmaking in Australia, namely: “Aussiewood” production; government-backed low-to-mid budget production; co-productions; and guerrilla filmmaking.

Telev?rit? Hits Britain: Documentary, Drama and the Growth of 16mm Filmmaking in British Television

Sexton, J. (2003). Telev?rit? Hits Britain: Documentary, Drama and the Growth of 16mm Filmmaking in British Television. Screen. 44(4), pp.429-444. RAE2008

50 years of underground filmmaking in Melbourne: program 3

Program 3 of the 50 years of underground filmmaking in Melbourne, curated by Bill Mousoulis. A collection of John Cumming's films, including: Obsession, Recognition, and Sabotage. John also screened and discussed excerpts from some of his other works. The whole session was followed by discussion

Finding a voice - Nollywood inspired filmmaking practices in Switzerland

Under the name Nollywood a unique video film industry has developed in Nigeria in the last few decades, which now forms one of the world’s biggest entertainment industries. With its focus on stories reflecting „the values, desires and fears” (Haynes 2007: 133) of African viewers and its particular way of production, Nollywood brings „lived practices and its representation together in ways that make the films deeply accessible and entirely familiar to their audience“ (Marston et al. 2007: 57). In doing so, Nollywood shows its spectators new postcolonial forms of performative self‐expression and becomes a point of reference for a wide range of people. However, Nollywood not only excites a large number of viewers inside and outside Nigeria, it also inspires some of them to become active themselves and make their own films. This effect of Nigerian filmmaking can be found in many parts of sub‐Saharan Africa as well as in African diasporas all over the world – including Switzerland (Mooser 2011: 63‐66). As a source of inspiration, Nollywood and its unconventional ways of filmmaking offer African migrants a benchmark that meets their wish to express themselves as minority group in a foreign country. As Appadurai (1996: 53), Ginsburg (2003: 78) and Marks (2000: 21) assume, filmmakers with a migratory background have a specific need to express themselves through media. As minority group members in their country of residence they not only wish to reflect upon their situation within the diaspora and illustrate their everyday struggles as foreigners, but to also express their own views and ideas in order to challenge dominant public opinion (Ginsburg 2003: 78). They attempt to “talk back to the structures of power” (2003: 78) they live in. In this process, their audio-visual works become a means of response and “an answering echo to a previous presentation or representation” (Mitchell 1994: 421). The American art historian Mitchell, therefore, suggests interpreting representation as “the relay mechanism in exchange of power, value, and publicity” (1994: 420). This desire of interacting with the local public has also been expressed during a film project of African, mainly Nigerian, first-generation migrants in Switzerland I am currently partnering in. Several cast and crew members have expressed feelings of being under-represented, even misrepresented, in the dominant Swiss media discourse. In order to create a form of exchange and give themselves a voice, they consequently produce a Nollywood inspired film and wish to present it to the society they live in. My partnership in this on‐going film production (which forms the foundation of my PhD field study) allows me to observe and experience this process. By employing qualitative media anthropological methods and in particular Performance Ethnography, I seek to find out more about the ways African migrants represent themselves as a community through audio‐visual media and the effect the transnational use of Nollywood has on their form of self‐representations as well as the ways they express themselves.

Participatory filmmaking with Qur’anic students in Kano, Nigeria: ‘speak good about us or keep quiet!’

‘Participatory’ research is often presented as a means to ‘empower’ stigmatised groups by addressing shame and by promoting attitude changes. Drawing on experiences producing a ‘participatory’ docudrama with traditional Qur’anic students (almajirai) in Kano, northern Nigeria, I reflect on the limits of ‘participatory’ research as a tool for ‘empowerment’. I describe the risks stigmatised groups may incur by participating, and consider to what extent, if at all, it can foster social change. The almajirai have attracted negative attention as presumed victims of child neglect and as ‘cannon fodder’ for Islamic radicalisation. Their participation in the filmmaking gave them an opportunity to voice their concerns and to rebuke those treating them heedlessly. At the same time, they became vulnerable to accusations and suspicions within their communities. To escape the negative connotations of poverty, they deemphasised its role for almajiri enrolment, thus concealing structural inequalities.

Documentary practice in a participatory culture

Debates concerning the veracity, ethics and politics of the documentary form circle endlessly around the function of those who participate in it, and the meaning attributed to their participation. Great significance is attached to the way that documentary filmmakers do or do not participate in the world they seek to represent, just as great significance is attached to those subjects whose participation extends beyond playing the part of eyewitness or expert, such that they become part of the very filmmaking process itself. This Ph.D. explores the interface between documentary practice and participatory culture by looking at how their practices, discursive fields and histories intersect, but also by looking at how participating in one might mean participating in the other. In short, the research is an examination of participatory culture through the lens of documentary practice and documentary criticism. In the process, however, this examination of participatory culture will in turn shed light on documentary thinking, especially the meaning and function of ‘the participant’ in contemporary documentary practice. A number of ways of conceiving of participation in documentary practice are discussed in this research, but one of the ideas that gives purpose to that investigation is the notion that the participant in contemporary documentary practice is someone who belongs to a participatory culture in particular. Not only does this mean that those subjects who play a part in a documentary are already informed by their engagement with a range of everyday media practices before the documentary apparatus arrives, the audience for such films are similarly informed and engaged. This audience have their own expectations about how they should be addressed by media producers in general, a fact that feeds back into their expectations about participatory approaches to documentary practice too. It is the ambition of this research to get closer to understanding the relationship between participants in the audience, in documentary and ancillary media texts, as well as behind the camera, and to think about how these relationships constitute a context for the production and reception of documentary films, but also how this context might provide a model for thinking about participatory culture itself. One way that documentary practice and participatory culture converge in this research is in the kind of participatory documentary that I call the ‘Camera Movie’, a narrow mode of documentary filmmaking that appeals directly to contemporary audiences’ desires for innovation and participation, something that is achieved in this case by giving documentary subjects control of the camera. If there is a certain inevitability about this research having to contend with the notion of the ‘participatory documentary’, the ‘participatory camera’ also emerges strongly in this context, especially as a conduit between producer and consumer. Making up the creative component of this research are two documentaries about the reality television event Band In A Bubble, and participatory media practices more broadly. The single-screen film, Hubbub , gives form to the collective intelligence and polyphonous voice of contemporary audiences who must be addressed and solicited in increasingly innovative ways. One More Like That is a split-screen, DVD-Video with alternate audio channels selected by a user who thereby chooses who listens and who speaks in the ongoing conversation between media producers and media consumers. It should be clear from the description above that my own practice does not extend to highly interactive, multi-authored or web-enabled practices, nor the distributed practices one might associate with social media and online collaboration. Mine is fundamentally a single authored, documentary video practice that seeks to analyse and represent participatory culture on screen, and for this reason the Ph.D. refrains from a sustained discussion of the kinds of collaborative practices listed above. This is not to say that such practices don’t also represent an important intersection of documentary practice and participatory culture, they simply represent a different point of intersection. Being practice-led, this research takes its procedural cues from the nature of the practice itself, and sketches parameters that are most enabling of the idea that the practice sets the terms of its own investigation.

Australasian horror special issue editorial : putting Australian and New Zealand horror movies on the map of cinema studies

This Australasian horror special issue is an important step forward in putting Australian and New Zealand horror movies on the map of film and cinema studies as a subject worthy of intellectual debate. The journal issue is the first devoted solely to the academic discussion of Australasian horror movies. While an Australian horror movie tradition has produced numerous titles since the 1970s achieving commercial success and cult popularity worldwide, the horror genre is largely missing from Australian film history. While there have been occasional essays on standout titles such as Wolf Creek (Mclean, 2005), an increasing number of articles on ‘Ozploitation’ movies, and irregular discussion about Australian Gothic, overall the nature of Australian horror as a genre remains poorly understood. In terms of New Zealand, debate has tended to revolve around ‘Kiwi Gothic’ and of course Peter Jackon’s early splatter films, rather than Kiwi horror as a specific filmmaking tradition.