Measuring ‘success’ in film policy: evaluating the New Zealand Film Commission’s Short Film Fund

Abstract

This paper explores the limitations of the economic rationalist discourse that dominates policy‐making through an examination of the New Zealand Film Commission’s short film funding scheme. Short film provides a unique case study of the effects of policy frames on a sector where the values of culture, creativity and careers collide, and where government support has a significant impact on the number and type of productions. Short film funding is framed by policy‐makers in instrumental terms as a means to help grow the feature film industry rather than on the basis of the medium’s own merits as a form of creative expression. The Short Film Fund is consequently evaluated according to the success of its projects and their creators, which tends to be equated with critical acclaim gained in international festivals. The author argues that attempts to demonstrate short film policy achievements through quantitative measures obfuscate more meaningful reasons for supporting filmmaking.

Keywords:

• policy framing
• film funding
• short film
• performance measurement

Notes

1. A version of this paper was originally presented at the New Zealand Political Studies Association Conference, Auckland, 30 November 2009. This paper has since changed significantly, thanks largely to the comments of two referees on an earlier version of it. The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by her supervisors Jennifer Curtin and Shuchi Kothari to the research project on which this article is based.

2. On the relationship between cinema and social reality, see Shohat and Stam (1994) and Turner (2006).

3. This sample is explained and examined in more detail in Blomkamp (2009).

4. Hester Joyce’s (2003) and Virginia Pitts’ (2008) theses emphasise the tensions between the economic and cultural objectives of the NZFC.

5. Economic rationalism is a somewhat controversial Australian term that describes the neoliberal ideology or ‘style of government’ that began dominating policy discourse in the 1980s (Burchell 1994).

6. Although this emphasis on ancillary economic benefits may be recent, the instrumental rationale of arts policy dates back at least 2000 years, according to Eleonora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett (2007).

7. That is, they are public goods whose private transactions have important indirect effects, such as cultivation of consumer taste for art, which helps to raise artistic standards, and generates ‘spillovers’ for other creative endeavours, particularly in collaborative areas such as film (Hazledine 2000).

8. These were the three ‘principal SRA [strategic result area] linkages’ of the NZFC in 1996, according to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs (1996). See also Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2009).

9. The NZFC (1998, p. 16) explained it as such: ‘The fund was intended to ensure that funds spent in postproduction were spent when cinema release was assured’.

10. The NZFC marketing department uses a coding system to rate festivals from ‘A’ to ‘D’; their definition of ‘A’ list festivals encompasses the world’s top film festivals (currently 18) that it categorises as ‘major events with prestige and influence’. Festivals for short films and features are assessed separately. The NZFC only considers eight festivals to be ‘A’ list festivals for feature films (Veber et al. 2007, p. 25). A similar approach to coding festivals exists in other countries too, although their ‘A’ list tends to be shorter (Beaudry et al. 2006, p. 15).

11. Occasionally, NZFC‐appointed EPs fund a film that blends elements of non‐fiction with another genre, such as the Simmonds brothers’ animated documentary films, A Very Nice Honeymoon (2006) and Noise Control (2008). The fund does not, however, cater for pure documentaries.

12. Previously, the short film scheme was positioned within Creative Development & Industry Support, which had the following objective: ‘To encourage the development of creative talent, and facilitate a dynamic film environment in New Zealand’ (NZFC 1998, p. 45).

13. This is discussed extensively by Yeatman (1998).

14. David Newman (2005, p. 22) confirms that the rate of one feature in every 10 developed going into production is similar to international standards.

15. For example, former NZFC Board member and EP Vanessa Alexander, personal communication, 23 March 2009. An analysis of the professional background of these filmmakers is presented in Blomkamp (2009, p. 95).

16. For a discussion of bicultural and multicultural discourses, and tensions between them, in relation to New Zealand arts and cultural policy, see, for example, Albiston (2000), James (2000), Moss (2005) and Skilling (2008).

17. Alexander (personal communication, 23 March 2009); Christina Milligan (personal communication, 24 March 2009).