A Matter of Perception
The Optics of a Film Commission Funding Grant
Much of the material in this article is drawn from the report in the Herald. The commentary and observations, on the other hand, are mine
Splashed across the front page of the Herald on Saturday 9 March 2024 was the headline “$800k in public funds for Ardern film.” The Herald continues “Documentary charting former PM’s rise and how ‘mania’ collided with a ‘backlash of hate’ secures Film Commission backing amid round of cost cutting at agency.” The article in the online Herald (which differs slightly from the print version) is here.
The reporting is, not unexpectedly, from the pen of Shayne Currie who reports on media matters. Russell Brown of Public Address on X (formerly Twitter) described the story as “rage-bait” and suggested “Maybe Shayne Currie could think past the lovely clicks he's going to get and think about editorial responsibility. Seriously.”
According to a synopsis provided by the Film Commission, the documentary will explore the “mania” that propelled Ardern’s rise as a young political leader and how that “later collided with a backlash of hate”.
The suggestion that there was a backlash of “hate” is something of a generalization. The “Jacindamania” aspect is perfectly correct but time and performance, along with a failure to be specific and a tendency to be evasive wore that goodwill away.
Hate is a very powerful word that is used for a very powerful emotion. Rather than a backlash of hate I would characterize the feeling as disenchantment on the part of the majority of New Zealanders although there were a few for whom the emotion towards Ardern was much more visceral.
What is planned is to make a film – if that is the right word in these digital days – as opposed to content for television. But what is proposed and what is being funded in part by the Film Commission is a feature film with the associated higher production costs - and commercial risks. It is being developed by documentary filmmakers Pietra Brettkelly and Justin Pemberton and will be produced by Firefly Films, headed by Emma Slade.
Is the “film” going to be about Jacinda Ardern or is it something else. In the synopsis provided it is to be a documentary – and one wonders about how successful that will be at the cinema – and is described as
“a social excavation of the rise and fall of the young female leader, Jacinda Ardern, exploring how the mania that propelled her rise later collided with a backlash of hate, told through a bold mash-up of media and peer archive”.
Are we going to see the film-maker as archeologist, if indeed what is proposed is an “excavation”. I have not heard a documentary described as such.
Annie Murray, Chief Executive of the Film Commission, said
“It is important to note this is not a biopic. Rather, the documentary explores the rise of violent extremism and online hate in New Zealand, following Jacinda Ardern’s leadership trajectory as an example of how these forces played out through one of the most tumultuous periods in modern history. The documentary records a period of New Zealand’s history.”
That description seems to clash with the synopsis that was provided. So what is the documentary about – the rise of violent extremism and online hate in New Zealand (do I have a sense of Fire and Fury and Web of Chaos here) or is it to be a study of the rise and fall of a female leader starting with mania and ending up with, as the synopsis claims “a backlash of hate”?
It doesn’t seem to be particularly clear from the report what in fact is being funded and clearly there is a divergence from the synopsis provided by the film makers and the interpretation of one of the funders – the Film Commission – on the other.
If that were not enough there are some other issues with this announcement. It comes as the NZ Film Commission restructures itself in a changing film environment, with plans to axe up to 21 roles. The commission recently announced it was entering a two-week confidential consultation period with staff over the organisation’s structure.
The Film Commission receives funding of up to $30.2 million this year from a number of sources including the Lottery Grants Board ($21.5m), the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (MCH) ($5.4m) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) ($1.3m). However this funding has been reduced from 2022-23 and the Commission has had to dip into its reserves.
But this is not an article about the Film Commission and its future. It is about what appears to be an appalling piece of public relations.
In the current climate where Mainstream Media is at a cross roads, where newsrooms are being disestablished or being startingly restructured, where there has been a call for cost cutting it seems curious to say the least to publicise a contribution of $800,000 to a documentary film that has associated with it higher production costs and higher risks.
In addition this is all taking place against a background of potential restructuring and cost cutting – not to mention reduced funding – within the Film Commission itself.
One wonders what the Film Commission’s publicity people were thinking in releasing this information at this particular time. The timing was appalling. One wonders if there is any level of empathy on the part of the Film Commission’s publicists or PR people when so many people in the media world are going through a period of pain and uncertainty about the future – and that includes those in the Film Commission itself.
In a world where perception is everything the optics could not be worse.
Then there is the subject matter of the documentary itself which, even in the synopsis recognizes a certain ambivalence towards the person involved not to mention a recognition that the person herself stirs up strong feeling – both positive and negative – on the part of the audience.
And the question must be asked – do we really need a film documentary about a polarizing Prime Minister. And it doesn’t matter how you spin it. In the final analysis this will be a film about Jacinda Ardern. It may not be a biopic but Ardern will be front and centre throughout.
Now a counter argument – and it is a valid one – is that film makers should be free to make whatever films they like as an aspect of their artistic expression. As an element of the freedom of expression I could not agree more.
But on the other hand the public is entitled to ask – especially when public money is going to fund this – whether at this point in time this is an appropriate way of dispensing largesse on the part of the Film Commission.
It is clear that funding has been obtained from other sources. Is $800,000 of public money that necessary to fund what, given the background rhetoric about the film, may well turn out to be yet another slanted, partisan and partial polemic or worse still agitprop – a puff piece for a former Prime Minister who would welcome the international publicity as she struts her stuff on the international stage.
another aspect of the public funding that seems to be consistently overlooked in the reporting on this project is that it will also qualify for a 40% rebate from the government through the NZ Screen Production Rebate programme administered by NZFC (but funded through MBIE). As a NZ screen producer myself I can guarantee this is already part of the finance plan for the project, it's part and parcel of how all local films are funded in NZ. I think I saw a figure of NZ$3.2MM as the gross budget, assuming some of that budget will not qualify for the rebate, I would expect the additional public money going into this project will be another NZ$1.2MM. So approx NZ$2MM in total of public money. It will never make that money back at the box office or streaming sales, but documentary's aren't ever expected to, they are cultural records. I personally have no interest in watching yet more govt funded propaganda and could think of 100 better documentary subjects that would record the state of our nation and people with NZ$2MM of public funding behind it.
Film Commission not reading the room - with 'that woman' as the subject it will be a box office flop and a total waste of taxpayer funds. I went to see a not taxpayer funded NZ documentary, which was a huge number one success at the NZ box office with packed theatres. Never mentioned in the media though, funny that!
Beautifully filmed, emotionally satisfying, real NZ people...River of Freedom is its name. Whenever 'that woman' appeared, the whole theatre would erupt in booing, such was the feeling toward her. This is the room that the NZFC should read.