tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5242690213881108403.post3193705902195621157..comments2023-08-19T02:34:27.678-07:00Comments on Film Alert 101: Defending AFTRS - An update on the Film School's activities prompted by the arrival of the new CEOUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5242690213881108403.post-4112333653060717632015-11-26T18:00:48.269-08:002015-11-26T18:00:48.269-08:00The point of this series of posts has been to poin...The point of this series of posts has been to point out that AFTRS is aspecial institution built and supported with a view to maximising the talented who will eventually enhance our reputation as a film-making nation. It's not a TAFE responding to shortfalls in the workforce. At least it wasn't. The survey suggests that's where it heading to.<br /><br />Why therefore can’t conclusions be drawn from simple statistics of feature films directed by AFTRS graduates? The reasons cited above - 1. Quality of training declined 2. Selection process deteriorated 3. School doesn’t want to pursue feature direction as the pinnacle of film making careers - are all AFTRS-created reasons. Of course you can say the School isn’t creating as many directors if it fails to train them properly, select them properly or teach them properly. <br /><br />The poster seems to accept that AFTRS has dumbed down but doesn’t think we should be allowed to make comparisons to previous decades because “I am troubled by the process of applying parameters that were relevant in the 70s and 80s”. Easy to say, but tell us why. If we can’t compare, then the new AFTRS is bullet-proof to criticism. And factually wrong anyhow. The blog specifically compares the 90s, not the 70s and 80s.<br /><br />If producing feature film directors isn’t an appropriate criterion than it would be good to have a discussion as to what is. <br /><br />“Feature films are not necessarily what we’d have called feature films a generation ago”. Not sure about that.<br />Film Alert 101https://www.blogger.com/profile/09861654699422485650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5242690213881108403.post-61963209169308732512015-11-25T21:45:38.780-08:002015-11-25T21:45:38.780-08:00It's very difficult to draw conclusions from t...It's very difficult to draw conclusions from the simple statistics of feature films directed by AFTRS graduates from any particular range of years, however tempting it might be. It might be that the quality of training has declined: it might be that the selection process has deteriorated: it might be that the intended outcome of training has widened, or that the school simply doesn't pursue feature direction as the pinnacle of film making careers. These are the simplest conclusions, but they assume that all else has remained equal in the industry.<br />However, in that recent period, until this year, it has to be said that the quality of features being made in Australia has been pretty poor. That must go to wider causes than the output of AFTRS - after all, while those 1970s AFTS graduates have had legendary careers making great films, they were among many others who didn't go to any film school. <br />Incidentally, there are now many more film schools or media departments of universities than there used to be: some of them perhaps much more nimble, by virtue of being privately run,and small, in responding to student desires and industry needs.<br />It's being noted in many countries, including Australia, that top talent is now turning to TV production. Does that perhaps figure? In the 70s and 80s, if you didn't make feature films - on modest but hard-to-raise budgets - you weren't in the game. Now there are so very many more outlets for "media makers", while what they call "feature films" are not necessarily what we'd have called feature films a generation ago.<br />In other words, I am troubled by the process of applying parameters that were relevant in the 70s and 80s, to a new generation of film makers and of film making.<br />That said, it does seem that AFTRS has shifted dramatically in its mission since those heady days - especially under Sandra Levy. I believe that of late it recruits school-leavers rather than those already demonstrating credentials in the industry. It certainly seems to have averred itself against any charges of elitism - and in so doing it has removed its valuable point-of-difference from the tech colleges and university media departments, and - lo and behold - as a result it has failed to produce an elite.<br />There is probably much more: but I do think it's important to judge the school's performance with appropriate criteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com