MovieChat Forums > The Magician (2010) Discussion > financing - put it in context please

financing - put it in context please

posted 19 years ago by Alice_K
11 replies | jump to latest

A reviewer on the main page for this film comments that The Magician is "a real relief from the mostly poor uninspired films currently being made within the Australian Film Finance system." Well, sorry, but it got more than $400,000 completion funding from the FFC and therefore is firmly within the film financing system.

This may be an unconventional financing pathway but The Magician would not be having a theatrical release without this money, and most likely would not be seen at prestigious festivals like MIFF and Sydney either (although, yes, at a festival like Melbourne Underground Film Festival - it appeared there prior to the funds injection).
Yes, this film was shot on a shoestring but it was in fact developed over several years - as was explained at the MIFF screening Q&A last night - from a shorter to a longer version, before finally attracting completion funds for a radical recut, sound mix and kine.

So, although it's perfectly true that Scott Ryan showed huge determination and initiative in getting this film made and should be congratulated for that, it is entirely inaccurate to say that it was made "without the need for 'developement' money and 5 - 8 years of 'writing'." Okay, so not 5-8 years but certainly a couple (re-cutting can be writing too). The use of improvisation does not mean no writing is required - probably the contrary. There clearly was a significant development process. It progressed over several years - I think it was shot in 2003 - and went through various incarnations.

I don't think it's appropriate to bag the funding bodies in this context - one of them actually came to this film's aid and saw its potential. And is, in fact, the principle investor. And let's not get carried away about the possibilities of micro-budget shooting, implying that suddenly 'development' and 'writing' are unnecessary wastes of time - indulgence, basically. This is simply not the case. Besides, genuinely shooting for 'nothing' is all very well for occasional projects but is hardly a realistic prospect for most crew and cast who are building careers in the film industry. They have to eat too - why should they work without pay?

Obviously people are free to fund their films from their own credit card or from granny's life savings or whatever - but with The Magician this is not really the case. Let me say, too, that I enjoyed a lot about The Magician - I think it had some great performances and some really engaging scenes. However, I also think it would have benefited from a better plot. More of that pesky 'writing' ..

I'm not posting this just to get on that person's case and be pedantic, I actually think it's extremely important that people understand this stuff. There seems to be this perception out there that Australian filmmakers get all this cushy funding and then come up with boring films, and that the government is being oh so generous and giving people a free ride. In this case, the government gave someone some money but I'm sure there was nothing cushy about it.

In actual fact, Australia has one of the lowest per capita film funding rates of all developed nations. The money the government gives to filmmakers is the only thing making the industry viable at all. We could not compete without it and there would be no Australian film industry.

I'm not suggesting there aren't plenty of problems - but people getting too much money and too much time to develop films simply is not one of them. Think about how you would feel working on something for about 5 years and being paid $50,000. Sound like fun? There are no expense accounts, no long lunches, no perks. The filmmakers themselves are subsidising the Australian film industry, far more than the funding agencies. It is their willingness to work for very little that makes the whole thing possible at all. So don't begrudge them whatever income they can actually get - or encourage the federal government to slash the funding even more than it already has!

[–] antonking-1 19 years ago

i just went to Q&A with Scott Ryan too. Here in Melbourne. He wrote his 40 page script in a month, knowing he wanted to ad lib and make it a feature. He did. Ten days of shooting over a year and a half. No one picked it up. He did a 30 minute cut just to get exposure. it worked and then he got his $400,000 to fix the sound and to transfer it to film. He made a feature for $3000. Cap guns from toy shops, a camera he owned of just a few grand, no crew, some pizzas, some car hire and some cigarettes. He had a completed film, a feature, before he had to chop it up and show it around to get the $ for post. He considered applying for funding in the process but didn't qualify for the process. If you want government funding to make a feature film you have to have made a feature film. If you want to make your first feature film ... 22

australian film funding should be increased, but it should not have so many limitations on it. go to all the government agencies and their is a real shortage of grants available for emerging filmmakers. I mean those who don't have prior film or tv credits. Scott Ryan like the makers of Primer and the makers of Saw had the tenacity to push it through and get a very good film made without prior broadcast credits so why are film funding bodies limited in this way? producing films is not so unique that only those with experience on broadcasted product can make decent product.

Oh the other thing I should note is that apparently had tried writing hitman movies before, and that he'd been reading on the subject for a number of years.

[–] xiangk 19 years ago

well said.

if you think that Ryan decided one day - hey, i'm going to make a film, and had 400 grand thrown at him, you've got to be off your tree. He slogged so hard to get that funding when noone would touch him or his project with a ten foot pole

[–] twankie 18 years ago

I agree with most of what has been said here but for one thing - more govt funding is not going to "save" the Australian film industry. In fact I believe it is one of the factors that is crippling it. It was mentioned Australia is close to the bottom of the list of countries that get decent govt film grants - you know who's actually at the bottom of that list?

USA.

Kudos to the Ryans of the world who have the tenacity to get their babies through and it's a real shame that it is so hard for filmmakers to get their films made in a country with so much talent.

So much talent, in fact, that has to go overseas to be able to make a living from that talent...

The Macquarie Bank has taken a step in the right direction, and Village/Roadshow is slowly getting there too but it's still not good enough. It's only a single step at this stage and still not very far from the ridiculous application for a grant system already in place.

Private enterprise is the key to a successful industry - no matter what the industry - and that means M O N E Y money has to be spent, not on horse races, not on popularity contests-cum-telethons, but on TALENT.

I'm not just talking about the Beyonds and Freemantle Medias here - I'm talking about punters. Regular people putting their hands in their pockets and forking out to see an Aussie film at the cinema. You don't have to like it! But at least watch it - the very least any of us can do is take it home on video...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OptimusPrime2 18 years ago

Well technically it did not cost 3000 but the point is that he was able to make a full length feature with only 3000 of his own money. Not only that but El Mariachi, Clerks, and many other indie films cost a lot lot more than they were said to too. For those films they are really just counting what the filmmakers spent on their own.

[–] Jimmyobr 18 years ago

The australian film industry is struggling because there isnt any money handed out in the development/writing stage. We are getting great technical productions but alot of the time the story just doesn't cut it.And i don't care what you say, productions about oyster farmers or japanese businesmen are great for people like us but you cant expect bums on seats, We need guys like Nick Cave who have got the cash allready to make the big budget scripts. We should nurture people like Scott Ryan or people as such with talent and fund their projects from the word go. Not after they have spent 2 years writing for peanuts. Paramount saw the potential for this, they actually funded Mario Puzo to write "The Godfather" as a novel so they could make a film about it later on.

[–] vampiresan 18 years ago

As a writer who has worked in the australian industry for over 10 years I can tell you there is NO MONEY at all for writers. The people who make up the film funding bodies wouldn't be able to recognise a great script/idea if they tripped over it and I often wonder what the hell gives them the belief they can?

Scott Ryan will probably get a bit of money for his next project at a early stage from the funding bodies because he had a success with The Magician... but mostly because he was the director/producer rather than because he was the writer. And he'll get money only after he comes up with a script.

I have worked on a number of no budget features as a writer to see the directors go off and get a reasonable shot at another film but as the writer I am always left out of the loop unless I want to work with that director again... and usually when they see a bit of money they feel they have to write their second film by themselves and then it is basically a bit crap (the old 2 feature curse has a very good reason)

The Australian Industry is suffering not from lack of talent but from lack of recognition for writing talent and writer's worth.

Funding 100 writers to develop great scripts over one year would cost less than producing one box office flop. But it's just not sexy to spend money on scripts. You can't take a script home to the wife (or hubby) and show her what you helped make today so the AFC, FTO and FFC just aren't interested.

As to the original post which started this thread... she seems to be arguing six different things at once and I am really unsure what the basic point is... that The Magician did get funding at some stage and so should be seen as a triumph of the Australian Funding Bodies ability to see and develop talent, or that the fact it had to basically be completed before people who are supposed to be trained to recognise great filmic talent could recognise that it was worth putting money in shows how useless and pathetic our film funding decision makers are? Is she arguing that we have a great funding structure or a poor one? That people should work for nothing if they want to "make it" or that they need to live if they are to create work?

ignorance is a choice, stupidity is a vocation

[–] Blad33 17 years ago

Unless you have a family writers don't need money to write the script. Many have done just fine with a part time job only. Prove that you can do it then get paid.

"Thinking about it that's the easy bit...it's doing it that's difficult." -- Life Is Sweet.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LAT71 17 years ago

According to the blurb in the DVD extras, The Magician has so far failed to return a profit - possibly the kiss of death for Scott Ryan getting funds for future ventures.

A real shame because I'm looking forward to seeing more of his work.

[–] gleep 16 years ago

The use of improvisation does not mean no writing is required - probably the contrary.

Excatly. After digging the grave, Ray tells Benny to get in the car. In the out-take we see Benny suggest he should first attempt to get into the back door, rather than the boot, because that is what 'Benny' would try. Kane Mason (Benny) wouldn't have made that suggestion without knowing his character through the excellent script writing. I mean, I wanted to shoot the guy when he was making his lunch order, but still Benny pushed it.