Great news to see you (t)here!
I mean, at The Story Dept and at AFTRS.

Perhaps the question should be: why do screenwriters choose to appeal to their peers rather than to an audience?

Here’s a hypothesis:

1) They meet their peers more often face-to-face, so it’s a matter of self-esteem.

2) They’re lazy. To write for an audience you have to go beyond your own story and learn a thing or two.

See who has the courage to write THAT post first! ;)

I like your blog, Allen.

Please keep coming back!

K

I was about to write a post yesterday on “Why Australian screenwriters think Australian audiences aren’t like world audiences” but this covers much the same turf.

It upsets me that Chris Vogler was conned by local writers that Australia is a herophobic culture. On what evidence? Which hugely popular American film has not been hugely popular here? Australian audiences want what all audiences want. To be taken on an emotionally satisfying journey.

You can rest assured that AFTRS will be turning out students well schooled in the Hero’s Journey and the importance of concept. I’ve just joined the school to run the Grad Certificate in Screenwriting program and I am a huge Campbell/Vogler devotee.

Good points Mark, although the government fund is not ‘supposed’ to be a handout but a hand-up for those not established sufficiently to be accepted by our investors on face-value.

Most investors in Oz look to historical ‘proof’ for commercial potential, or at the very least, they seek to mitigate the risk, as Karel notes, by spreading it.

A motivation not necessarily shared with all US investors.

My last two trips to the US were a recognisance mission, and so worth it. An interesting fact: For an emerging writer to get funded in Hollywood it is often a matter of literally being in the right place at the right time and having the gift of the gab to sell your idea on the spot (note, I say ‘idea’, not screenplay, not even concept for that matter).

Filmmaking is an expensive art form, so the package needs to be attractive to potential investors. But ‘attractive’ can spell a number of different motivations.

What filmmakers in Oz don’t seem to realise is that not all Hollywood investors are simply interested in commercially viable films. Films are made that barely see the light of day. Yet their writers keep getting funded by the same investors over and over(?) Mind you, nothing to do with philanthropic sentiments either.

While overseas, I was invited to se two films written by a writer with no writing education or experience. In one, a support actor was an Oscar nominee. Well, I could barely make myself sit through them: story and production values were rock bottom. None the less, I persevered since I was invited by the distributor to the after-party and could not pass up the opportunity to find out from the executive producers how they came across the scripts, how they assessed them and why they decided to fund them.

Both of the scripts in question were written in record time, one of them, wait for it… in 3 weeks!(?) Because, the investors ‘needed’ them. Anyone with a bit of imagination can speculate why.

Point being, whatever the investors’ motivations, options available to us are not mutually exclusive and yet we discuss them as if they were. All options must be equally considered and ALL that work, utilised to get the momentum going. For our own stories, for the industry in Oz.

Once made, the work speaks for itself, and if created to be engaging, the next one will have exponentially more options open to it and it’s team.

As far as Jeffrey’s question below about the rat’s nest, I think Susie makes some relevant points, as do all contributors.

All we now need is to piece the suggestions into a cohesive, broader context. Create a bit of a mind-map…

Let’s see…

What DO they do with rats nests?

Thank you Susie. You’ve made some very pertinent points.

I like the idea of “Back to basics” and have effectively reshaped some of my workshops to do just that.

As to how we should deal with rules, I’m with Mystery Man. Loved his article On Breaking Structure.

“People just need to shut up and start making films here.”

That’s actually happened quite often in OZ.

Ironically I think Australia’s wonderful ‘can do’ attitude has fired back in the world of filmmaking.

Too many films have been made “because they could” and without enough thought going into the development and marketing.

Jock, I’m afraid you missed the Mid Point!
(LOL)

Great answer.

I agree with you. The solution lies with us. No-one else is going to fix the situation for us. We need to educate ourselves and learn to work outside – or alongside the system, if it is indeed terminally ill.

If we’re part of it, we’ll run the risk of dying with it.

Mark,

I have had my moments when I agreed with you. Then I’ve had my moments when I would WANT to agree with you.

Unfortunately the reality is far more complex.

See my comment above: investors are so scared, they want to see the government share the risk.

Lilyana,

I think I’m going to engage you as a guest contributor. :)

Thank you for a great comment, worthy of it’s own headline! (now, what would that be??)