the mainstreamfilm industry’.^7 Two decades on, this claim
is just as pertinent.
ScreenAustraliapays lip serviceto thedevelopment
of film culturein its priorities,includingthe goal to ‘pro-
vide opportunitiesfor criticaldebateand analysisof
screencontent’,^8 but responsibilityfor film culturehas
largelybeen deferredto state-basedagencies.In-depth
examinationof state fundingis beyondthe scopeof
this article,but a brief comparisonof New SouthWales
(NSW)and Victoriahighlightsthe patchworkcommitment.
Underthe bannerof audienceengagementor develop-
ment, both fund diversemetropolitanand regionalfilm
festivalsand some events.NSW has no specificstrat-
egy for fosteringancillaryfilm-cultureactivities,and the
supportit can offer is limited.^9 DespiteSydneybeing
named,in 2001, a UNESCOCity of Film – with a com-
mitment‘to promot[ing]the enjoymentof screenculture
bySydneysidersandtouristsforculturalandeconomic
benefit’^10 – its 2017/18reportto UNESCOfocuseson
production;beyondfestivals,no specificfilm-culture
initiativesare listed.^11 FilmVictoria,in contrast,hasstood
out for its explicitcommitmentto supportingfilm culture;
indeed,the agencylists the promotionof film culture as
one of its three strategicpriorities.^12
Foregroundingfilm culturein its policyagendahas
allowedFilm Victoriato fund initiativesthat have helped
the state become‘a vibranthub for screenactivityand
culture’.^13 TheATOMAwards,SensesofCinemaandeven
this very magazine– all vital to buildinga nationalfilm
cultureand puttingAustraliancinemaon the map interna-
tionally– have all, at variouspoints,receivedfundingfrom
Film Victoria.However,the windsof changehave also hit
Film Victoria’sfilm-culturecommitments.In 2017, funding
criteriaincludedsupportfor organisations‘that promote,
discussand show screenculture’;^14 in 2018,theguide-
lines were changed,supportwas pared back to empha-
sise festivalsand events,and publicationswere explicitly
excluded,thus knockingMetroandSensesofCinema
off the fundingslate. It is notablethat, in 2016, coinciding
with the publicationofScreenCurrency, Deloittewasen-
listed to producea reportanalysingthe Victorianscreen
sector.^15 And it does not appearto be a coincidencethat,
on the back of this report,a more expansiveapproachto
sustainingthe state’sscreensectorhas been curtailed.
Excludingthe contributionof film cultureto the mobi-
lisationofAustraliancinema’sculturalvalueundermines
the potentialofScreenCurrencytocontributetoeffec-
tive strategicthinkingfor our screenindustries.The year
beforeits publication,ScreenAustraliaissueda report
onissuesfacingthedistributionofAustralianfeature
films. While this earlierdocumentpinpointsa ‘tight and
unforgivingtheatricalmarket’and arguesthat ‘[a]ll play-
ers will need to maintaina strongfocus on the audience’,
with producers‘need[ing]to think and act creativelyto
connecttheir film with its identifiedaudience’,^16 it ignores
the culturalcontextwithinwhichsuch issuesand strate-
gies unfold.As critic Tina Kaufmanhas noted,in ongoing
debatesabout why Australianfilms do not reach audien-
ces, ‘a seriouslook at the importanceof screenculturein
this equationis conspicuousby its absence’.^17 The 2015
distributionreport suggeststhat the screenindustries‘will
needto[...]learnfromfailuresaswellasfromsucces-
ses, in order to make good decisions and provide the best
xxxxNotonlydoI wanttoreframethe
questionabouthowtomeasurethe
culturalvalueofAustraliancinema,but
I alsoseektoask:Howdoesa dynamic
filmcultureenable,activate,mobilise
andamplifythecultural value of
Australian cinema?http://www.metromagazine.com.au | © ATOM | Metro Magazine 201• 121