Film Policy Essay

Page 1 Student Number: 27488276

Should we call you New Zealand or Middle Earth?

'Film creates culture, builds identity and markets that identity to the world. Film tells potent New

Zealand stories. Those stories and the voices, characters and landscapes which constitute them give

expression to our identity. They create culture'1

'The outstanding financial and critical success of Jackson's Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) has, it

would seem, silenced the demands of cultural nationalists for New Zealand content and an

indigenous identity on screen'2

4.5 million people populate New Zealand's 270,000 km2 body of land, they are located

approximately 11,000 km from Hollywood, the world centre of large-budget film production.

Similar to other small countries, New Zealand's national film industry faces the struggle of

attaining either financial success, cultural relevance or both. The quotes above demonstrate this

divide that exists between creating a cinema representative of New Zealand's culture and one

capable of making sizeable financial returns. Writing on the nearest national cinema and

comparable in several respects, Elizabeth Jacka comments that the Australian film industry: '… is

not metropolitan enough to be in the international mainstream of either intellectual or artistic life,

and not marginal enough to be exotic'3. Considering this dilemma, in this essay I will investigate

how the financial and critical success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy4 can be seen to have affected

two separate New Zealand film funding initiatives and their directed support to either commercial

or cultural film production. In what follows I will analyse the Large Budget Screen Production

Grant (LBSPG) and the Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF). Through consideration of

government reviews and evaluations of these initiatives I will assess the effectiveness of the

schemes based on their original objectives. Further to this I will also review comments from critics

1 Ruth Harley, 'Cultural Capital and the Knowledge Economy', (1999) 2 Mayer, Geoff and Keith Beattie, The Cinema of Australia and New Zealand (London: Wallflower Press, 2007), p. 8-9 3 Jacka, Elizabeth., 'Australian cinema', in John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson, World Cinema Critical Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 132 4 The Lord of the Rings trilogy, directed by Peter Jackson (New Line Cinema: New Zealand, 2001-2003)


such as Trisha Dunleavy and Joyce Hester5, who address the significance of New Zealand film and

television as important cultural and creative industries.

New Zealand is not a nation new to film, screening of motion pictures started in 1896 and

they shot their first film in the country two years later. The industry was small-scale with national

directors creating New Zealand themed feature films and until 1978, opportunities for filmmakers

were scarce. The New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC) was established by the government that

year with the primary functions: '(a) to encourage and also to participate and assist in the making,

promotion, distribution, and exhibition of films: (b) to encourage and promote cohesion within the

New Zealand film industry'6. As such the administration of the LBSPG and the SPIF were part of

their remit when introduced by the government. As a marker of the NZFC's importance in

promoting accessible film production, their website boasts that in the 36 years since they were

established, more than 300 feature films have been made in New Zealand7. The vast majority of

these received funding support from the commission or the government grants they administer,

comparatively, the preceding 30 years saw fewer than 20 feature films made in the country8. As

these figures show, the intervention of the state in matters of film production proved essential in

developing the sector. In their book investigating the cinema of small nations, Mette Hjort and

Duncan Petrie9 explore the difficulties faced by small national cinemas in the face of a dominant

production force such as Hollywood. Duncan Petrie discusses the role governments previously

performed and continue to play currently, suggesting that: 'While historically state intervention in

film production had been a protective response to Hollywood domination, the new global economy

has created the situation in which governments can actively assist transnational corporations while

simultaneously serving the national interest'10. Two films in the 1990's particularly typify this state

5 Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, New Zealand Film and Television: Institution, Industry and Cultural Change (Bristol: Intellect, 2011) 6 New Zealand Legislation, 'New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978', (1978) 7 New Zealand Film Commission, 'Key Facts', (2014) 8 New Zealand Film Commission, 'Key Facts', (2014) 9 Hjort, Mette and Duncan Petrie, The Cinema of Small Nations (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2007) 10 Petrie, Duncan., 'New Zealand', in Mette Hjort and Duncan Petrie, The Cinema of Small Nations (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2007) p. 161


aided situation of assisting commercial gains whilst representing the nation. Heavenly Creatures11

was based on a notorious true story from New Zealand's history, and Once Were Warriors12 is an

affecting portrayal of Maori adaptation to urban life. Both films were funded by the NZFC and

went on to profit at the international box office with Once Were Warriors accumulating $25

million13.

The NZFC is not the only promoter of New Zealand film production, assistance has also

taken the form of international financing and co-productions, caution must be taken with regards to

their financial motivations though. One such example of this arrangement is highlighted by The

Piano14 which received majority French funding, the global success of the film far surpassed the

previous examples mentioned. According to its producer Jan Chapman, almost a year after its

release, it had earned $116,695,94715. This can be seen as the result from characteristics of what

Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O'Regan term a 'Local Hollywood'16. Their book charts the

forces and innovations that occurred to move production from outside the borders of California,

they describe 'Local Hollywood's' as locations with advantageous attributes to film production such

as people, place; providers, financing; story settings and locations17. These significant centres of

film production are a marker of the globalisation of Hollywood and whilst they provide the best

platform for film production, it is ideal for the Hollywood model favouring financial success over

any accurate national representation. For New Zealand there is one film series that exemplifies this,

The Lord of the Rings (TLOTR) trilogy, which unadjusted for inflation, took a worldwide gross of

$2,911,400,00018. After this large-scale economic success, favourable conditions in New Zealand

were created and capitalised upon by other sectors such as tourism and special effects companies.

11 Heavenly Creatures, directed by Peter Jackson (WingNut Films: New Zealand, 1994) 12 Once Were Warriors, directed by Lee Tamahori (New Zealand Film Commission: New Zealand, 1994) 13 Paul Stanley Ward, 'Once Were Warriors', (2008) 14 The Piano, directed by Jane Campion (Australian Film Commission: New Zealand, 1993) 15 Crofts, Stephen., 'Foreign Tunes? Gender and Nationality in Four Countries' Reception of The Piano', in Harriet Margolis, Jane Campion's The Piano (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) p. 135 16 Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O'Regan, Local Hollywood Global Film Production and the Gold Coast (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2010) p. 4 17 Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O'Regan, p. 4-11 18 Box Office Mojo, 'The Lord of the Rings', (2014)


Tourism New Zealand (TNZ) continues to market the country as Middle Earth with a recent

campaign titled: '100% Middle Earth, 100% Pure New Zealand'19. The issue faced from all this

success is the inaccurate representation of New Zealand that is not only created on screen, but also

then absorbed and distributed in other forms. Forgotten are the stories of Maoris and other real-life

New Zealanders and it is in this climate that the government introduced the LBSPG. This scheme

would seem to compound the problem of cultural representation in film by focusing on

incentivising the production of large budget productions.

Launched in 2004, the Large Budget Screen Production Grant (LBSPG) had the primary aim

of increasing: '… economic growth by providing a financial incentive to attract large scale screen

production to New Zealand, which would be unlikely to come in the absence of such incentives'20.

As detailed in the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment's evaluation of the LBSPG

from 2004 until 2011: The financial incentive offered was originally a 12.5% rebate on Qualifying

New Zealand Production Expenditure (QNZPE), where the New Zealand expenditure was NZ$15

million or more21. Dunleavy and Hester note that New Zealand companies were eligible to apply

for the LBSPG but the large sums of investment capital required tended to exclude them22. The

previously mentioned New Zealand films from the 1990's had a combined budget of less than the

eligible amount required to receive any LBSPG rebate, as such it can be seen that productions like

TLOTR, with an estimated budget of almost $297 million23 were the intended recipients. The

effectiveness of the grant in commercial terms, and the appeal to producers of large budget

productions has been well recorded. In a discussion paper examining the growth and dynamics of

the New Zealand Screen Industry, the Ministry of Economic Development quote figures showing

that between the years 2005 and 2011, direct economic impact of the production and post-

production sector has increased its contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 0.25% to

0.47%24. Referring to Table 1, producers of films qualifying for LBSPG were asked to select the

19 Tourism New Zealand, '100% Middle Earth', (2013) 20 Ministry of Economic Development, 'Large Budget Screen Production Grant Overview', (2009) p. 2 21 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, (2012) p. 20 22 Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, p. 223 23 DiMare, Philip C., Movies in American History: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1(California: ABC-CLIO, 2011) p. 309 24 Ministry of Economic Development, 'Discussion Paper Growth and Dynamics of the New Zealand Screen Industry', (2012) p. 6


influence the initiative had on their decision to film in New Zealand. It reveals that of the 35

qualifying films, 30 rated the LBSPG as at least very important, with those productions accounting

for 90% of the total QNZPE spent.

Influence of

LBSPG

Extremely

Important

70-90%

Very

Important

50-70%

Important

30-50%

Partly

Important

10-30%

Not

Important

0%

Number of

Productions 9 21 - 2 3

Total QNZPE

(NZ$M) $731.9 $1,011.3 - $98.6 $95.3

Average QNZPE

(NZ$M) $81.3 $48.2 - $49.3 $31.8

Table 1: Influence of LBSPG25

The influence of TLOTR and the state desire for economic improvement can be seen again three

years into the scheme when adjustments were made which increased the grant to 15% of QNZPE

and even more revealingly, allowed for the bundling of productions. Bundling applies to two or

more screen productions, where each production spends a minimum QNZPE of NZ$3 million or

more and together they are combined to achieve a total QNZPE of NZ$30 million or more26. The

first two Chronicles of Narnia2728 film adaptations narrowly missed out on the opportunity of

bundling. Fortunately for the financiers, they qualified for individual grant support with their

estimated total budgets of $150 million29 and $225 million30 respectively. Unfortunately for the

25 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, 'Evaluation of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant 2004- 2011', (2012) p. 55 26 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, 'Evaluation of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant 2004- 2011', (2012) p. 86 27 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, directed by Andrew Adamson (Walt Disney Pictures: USA, 2005) 28 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, directed by Andrew Adamson (Walt Disney Pictures: USA, 2008) 29 Williams, Thomas, Following Prince Caspian: Further Encounters with the Lion of Narnia (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008) p. 60


representation of New Zealand as a culture, it was yet again promoted as a land of fantasy.

The financial value of purchasing the filmic representation of New Zealand is very

desirable for a government wishing to foster an environment bringing economic improvement on

the scale of TLOTR. With King Kong31 and Avatar32 that figure was $389 million33 and $307

million34 respectively. This amount is the QNZPE and as a result a generous grant of $48.6

million35 and $44.69 million36 was provided. The majority most likely returning to the American

producers Universal Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox for their original investment. The aims,

criteria and financial alterations to the LBSPG are revealing of their economic focus. The proof of

the schemes appeal for producers though is validated at the box office where Avatar took an

estimated $2,787,965,08737 worldwide. This revenue is impressive but reflective of the success

made by production companies, in these instances American, not the direct impact upon New

Zealand. However, an informative insight is offered through analysis of government statistics for

the screen industry between 2005, one year after its inception, and 2012, nearing a decade of

continuing support. Gross revenue for the production and post-production sector increased from

$NZ 1,294 million38 to $NZ 1.67 million39 with the USA remaining the largest international

financier with contributions exceeding $500 million4041. Importantly, feature film and short film

30 Schatz, Thomas., 'Movies and a Hollywood Too Big to Fail', in Timothy Corrigan, American Cinema of the 2000s: Themes and Variations (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2012) p. 207 31 King Kong, directed by Peter Jackson (Universal Pictures: USA, 2005) 32 Avatar, directed by James Cameron (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation: USA, 2009) 33 Hon Gerry Brownlee, 'Avatar delivers $307M to New Zealand economy', (2010) 34 Hon Gerry Brownlee, 'Avatar delivers $307M to New Zealand economy', (2010) 35 Petrie, Duncan., p. 168 36 Hon Gerry Brownlee, 'Avatar delivers $307M to New Zealand economy', (2010) 37 Box Office Mojo, 'Avatar', (2014) 38 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2004/05 – Hot Off the Press', (2006) p. 3 39 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2011/12 – Hot Off the Press', (2013) p. 2 40 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2004/05 – Hot Off the Press', (2006) p. 3 41 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2011/12 – Hot Off the Press', (2013) p. 3


made a combined $699 million in 200542, with feature film alone then making an impressive $1.04

billion in 201243. These figures attest to the LBSPG's commercial success and confirm Petrie's

examinations regarding the ability for governments to serve the national interest whilst assisting

transnational corporations. As mentioned, the problem of this initiative is the lack of focus toward

cultural depiction, so obvious is the government intention for this scheme that it is not surprising

for Dunleavy and Hester to note its creation required additional working partnerships between the

NZFC and the government. This resulted in the inclusion of representatives from the Ministry of

Economic Development on the first board44, blurring the lines between direct and indirect state

involvement. Here the cultural representation charged to the NZFC appears to be ignored and the

country loses its national identity through film. Reviewing the NZFC's ability to orchestrate the

LBSPG, New Zealand Equity suggested the scheme: '… should be administered by the Ministry of

Culture and Heritage rather than the NZFC' as, '… the NZFC should focus on its cultural remit ...

i.e supporting those productions that have significant NZ cultural content'45.

To remedy the situation, in 2009, the NZFC were again entrusted to administer a new grant

scheme introduced by the government. The Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF) can be seen

as a cultural antidote for film production that had become too commercially focused. Dunleavy and

Hester note the importance of the New Zealand film industry as a significant site for cultural

influence, where films are the primary vehicle for progressing cultural objectives46. However and

unfortunately for audiences, they note that New Zealand films: '... have remained a minority

element of the total viewing experience of New Zealanders', due to the '... ready availability and

contrasting abundance of imported examples'47. The intentions of the SPIF can be seen to reflect

this importance as the main objectives are to: 'Support increased production of medium and larger

scale New Zealand cultural screen content, for the benefit of audiences; support the retention of

New Zealand screen talent, stories and infrastructure'48. Unlike the LBSPG, the SPIF requires a 42 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2004/05 – Hot Off the Press', (2006) p. 1 43 Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2011/12 – Hot Off the Press', (2013) p. 2 44 Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, p. 223 45 New Zealand Equity and the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, 'NZ Government Review of the New Zealand Film Commission', (2009) p. 5 46 Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, p. 17 47 Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, p. 24 48 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 'Review Report: Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF)', (2012) p. 7


film production to have significant New Zealand content in order to qualify, the guidance

framework can be seen in table 2:

Significant New Zealand Content Areas Points Available

A - New Zealand Subject Matter

A1 - Setting 3 (0 - 3)

A2 - Lead Characters 3 (0 - 3)

A3 - Creative Material 3 (0 - 3)

A4 - Contribution to New Zealand Culture/History 2 (0 - 2)

Total - Section A (minimum: 3 for feature film, 2 for other formats) 11

B - New Zealand Production Activity

B1 - Shooting - Location/Studio 2 (0 - 2)

B2 - Visual Post-Production, Digital or Visual Effects, Research and

Development 2 (0 - 2)

B3 - Music Recording, Voice Recording, Audio Post-Production 1

Total - Section B 5

C - New Zealand Film-Makers

C1 - Director 2 (0 - 2)

C2 - Producer 2 (0 or 2)

C3 - Scriptwriter 2 (0 - 2)

C4 - Music Composer/Source Music 1

C5 - Lead Actors 2 (0 - 2)

C6 - Majority of Cast 1

C7 - Key Production Staff - DOP, Editor, Designer, Effects Supervisor 2 (0 - 2)

C8 - Majority of Crew 1

Total - Section C (minimum 3pts from C1 - C3) 13

D - Other Relevant Matters

D1 - Ownership of Copyright 1

D2 - Any other relevant matters - business development outcomes 1

Total - Section D 2

Total - minimum 20 (feature film) or 15 (other screen formats) __ (out of 31)

Table 2: SPIF Assessment of 'Significant New Zealand Content' Guidance - Points Framework49

49 New Zealand Film Commission, 'New Zealand Screen Production Incentive Fund', (2013) p. 29


It is interesting to note that a minimum amount of points need to be achieved in regards to the

sections on New Zealand subject matter and New Zealand film-makers including cast and crew.

Yet there is no minimum for pre-production and post-production or any actual location/studio

shooting in the country. Whereas the requirement to qualify for the LBSPG was to spend as much

in the country regardless of cultural representation, as was the apparent desire to exploit the

landscapes of the country as those of fantasy worlds. Here the precondition is that cultural

representation and the support of the New Zealand production talent and its infrastructure is

achieved, there is no actual requirement to portray the country itself. Once a production has

reached the required 20 points, spent a minimum of $2.5 million and maximum of $15 million in

QNZPE, it is able to receive a grant of 40% of the total QNZPE it has spent50. Table 3 contains

revealing statistics for the importance of the SPIF to producers:

Pre-SPIF

(2006/7-2007/8)

Post-SPIF

(2008/9-2010/11)

Total NZ Spend

$19.2 ml $56.4 ml

Producer's Intentions Without

SPIF

Would Have Relocated Offshore 1/12

Might Have Relocated Offshore 2/12

No Change 9/12

Table 3: Pre and Post SPIF Feature Film Comparisons - New Zealand Spend, Importance of SPIF

to Budgets and to Producers51

75% of producers were not influenced by the SPIF in their decision to shoot their productions

partly or wholly in New Zealand; only one of the twelve based their decision to film in the country

on the fund. This could be interpreted that their desire to represent the national culture and use

New Zealand filmmaking talent was more important to them than financial gain.

Written and directed by a New Zealander; produced by a New Zealander, starring New

Zealand actors as Maori's; scored by a New Zealand band, set and shot in New Zealand, the list

50 New Zealand Film Commission, 'New Zealand Screen Production Incentive Fund', (2013) pp. 3-5 51 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 'Review Report: Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF)', (2012) p. 16


goes on for just how 'New Zealand' Boy52 is. It was a recipient of the SPIF, nominated for thirteen

awards at the 2010 Qantas Film and Television Awards, and set the record for the highest grossing

New Zealand film at the domestic box office53. It proved to be a film both culturally and

commercially successful, validating the creation of the SPIF. Further proof of its success, and

importance to cultural representation can be concluded from tables 3 & 4.

Pre-SPIF

(2006/7-2007/8)

Post-SPIF

(2008/9-2010/11)

No. of films > $4 ml budget 4 9

Average budget

$9.5 ml ($5.6 - $16.6 ml) $7.5 ml ($4.5 - $10.7ml)

Av. box office receipts

$0.3 ml ($0.2 - $0.5 ml) $1.2 ml ($0.1 - $8.3 ml)

Table 4: Pre and Post-SPIF Feature Film Comparisons - Number, Budget Size and Box Office

Receipts54

They reveal that total New Zealand spend on comparable feature films almost tripled between the

pre-SPIF and post-SPIF years showing economic improvement. The number of films with budgets

smaller that $4 million more than doubled and the average budget decreased by 21%, suggesting

that film production is more achievable and infrastructure might have been enhanced. Further to

this, it conclusively means that more culturally significant films have been made, as those that fall

into this budget category would have all had to pass the cultural content test to receive the SPIF.

Finally, but just as revealing of the SPIF's success in achieving its objectives, the 400% higher

average box office shows that more people are seeing these films. However, this final figure is not

wholly representative, it would be much lower without the inclusion of Boy as its box office

success far surpassed any of the others. Table 5 shows the QNZPE; awarded SPIF and NZ box

office receipts for some of the SPIF funded films.

52 Boy, directed by Taika Waititi (Whenua Films: New Zealand, 2010) 53 New Zealand Film Commission, 'Annual Report 2010-2011', (2011) p. 16 54 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 'Review Report: Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF)', (2012) p. 14


Name of

Production Format

QNZPE

$

SPIF

$

NZ Box

Office

Receipts - $

Total Govt

Contribution

To Budget - %

2008/09

2009/10

Under the

Mountain Feature film 9,983,803 3,993,521 246,577

Separation City Feature film 5,114,599 2,045,840 498,411

Emilie Richards -

Tales of the South

Pacific TV series 3,700,886 740,177

Mataraki Feature film 4,207,582 1,683,033 15,490

Boy Feature film 5,167,563 2,067,025 8,286,389

Total 2009/10 28,174,433 10,529,596

2010/11

Bite Me TV series 2,251,471 450,424

Predicament Feature film 6,011,059 2,404,424 138,255

Tracker Feature film 6,382,988 2,553,195 57,170

Hopes & Dreams Feature film 4,708,953 1,883,581 59,979

Love Birds Feature film 8,583,089 3,433,236 511,359

Emilie Richards -

Tales of the South

Pacific (Season 2) TV series 3,700,886 930,882

ICE Feature film 6,223,344 2,489,338

ICE TV series 8,296,825 1,659,365

Total 2010/11 46,158,615 15,804,315

Total 2008/9-

2010/11 74,333,048 26,333,911

Average 2008/9-

2010/11 1,226,704 70

Table 5: Details of SPIF Funded Productions55 55 Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 'Review Report: Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF)', (2012) p. 12


The next nearest financially successful film at the box office to Boy was Love Birds56, which

attracted only 6.17% ticket sales in comparison. For commentators arguing economic development

of the industry over national representation, Mataraki57 is their proof. In box office receipts it

didn't even make 1% of the amount the SPIF awarded it for qualifying expenditure. It must be

noted that box office is not the gauge of success though, the scheme is intended to represent New

Zealand culture for audiences and support national filmmakers and it has achieved this. Even the

commercially unsuccessful funded films like Mataraki have been judged as culturally significant

and the increased number of them thanks to the SPIF means more production money is being spent

in and on the country. Unfortunately, this economic success is low and the national representation

is favourable but not capable of supporting the industry. Avatar spent $307 million in New Zealand

expenditure; all the SPIF films combined from the period analysed spent only 24% of that one

LBSPG attracted film.

A continual source of money flowing into their country is favoured by all nations of the

world. The Lord of the Rings trilogy brought this to New Zealand and the state reacted by

incentivising and fostering an environment where it could happen again and again. The LBSPG

was a success in this regard and revealed the extent of government involvement in the development

of the film industry. Examining entrepreneurship in the creative industries, Colette Henry suggests

that: 'The strategic state is a key driver of innovation in the national economy and is seen as a

catalyst in the creation of favourable systemic conditions'58. Government intervention was again

felt with the SPIF, its creation was not directly influenced by TLOTR but rather from that trilogy's

effect on the LBSPG and the cultural failings it had. 2014 saw the state at it again with the

introduction of another scheme, the New Zealand Screen Production Grant (NZSPG). Offering a

20% grant for international productions with an additional 5% for those passing a significant

economic benefits test, and a 40% grant for New Zealand productions with more flexibility in

defining a New Zealand production (2014)59. This should continue to attract large budget

56 Love Birds, directed by Paul Murphy (General Film Corporation: New Zealand, 2011) 57 Mataraki, directed by Michael Bennett (Filmwork: New Zealand, 2010) 58 De Breun, Anne., 'Building the film industry in New Zealand: an entrepreneurship continuum', in Colette Henry, Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries: An International Perspective (Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007) p. 95 59 New Zealand Film Commission, 'New Zealand Screen Production Grant Comes Into Effect', (2014)


productions whilst increasing those films deemed to have significant contribution to New Zealand's

representation. But with the Avatar sequels reportedly considering returning to New Zealand for

production with an estimated spend of $NZ 500 million (2014)60, will this grant crack the cultural

and commercial balance?

60 Nick Goundry, 'New Zealand Screen Production Grant comes into effect to boost location filming', (2014)


Bibliography:

Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O'Regan, Local Hollywood Global Film Production and the

Gold Coast (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2010)

Bennett, James E and Rebecca Beirne, Making Film and Television Histories: Australia and New

Zealand (London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2011)

Box Office Mojo, 'Avatar', Box Office Mojo Website, (2014)

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm [accessed December 2014]

Box Office Mojo, 'The Lord of the Rings', Box Office Mojo Website, (2014)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=lordoftherings.htm [accessed December

2014]

Crofts, Stephen., 'Foreign Tunes? Gender and Nationality in Four Countries' Reception of The

Piano', in Harriet Margolis, Jane Campion's The Piano (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000) pp. 135-162

De Breun, Anne., 'Building the film industry in New Zealand: an entrepreneurship continuum', in

Colette Henry, Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries: An International Perspective

(Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007) pp. 87-106

DiMare, Philip C., Movies in American History: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (California: ABC-

CLIO, 2011)

Dunleavy, Trisha and Joyce Hester, New Zealand Film and Television: Institution, Industry and

Cultural Change (Bristol: Intellect, 2011)

Goldsmith, Ben and Geoff Lealand, Directory of World Cinema: Australia and New Zealand

(Bristol: Intellect, 2010)

Hon Gerry Brownlee, 'Avatar delivers $307M to New Zealand economy', New Zealand National

Party Website, (2010) https://www.national.org.nz/news/news/media-

releases/detail/2010/01/24/avatar-delivers-$307m-to-new-zealand-economy [accessed December

2014]

Hjort, Mette and Duncan Petrie, The Cinema of Small Nations (Indiana: Indiana University Press,

2007)

Jacka, Elizabeth., 'Australian cinema', in John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson, World Cinema

Critical Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 132-138

Leotta, Alfio, Touring the screen: tourism and New Zealand film geographies (Bristol: Intellect,

2011)


Mayer, Geoff and Keith Beattie, The Cinema of Australia and New Zealand (London: Wallflower

Press, 2007)

Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 'Review Report: Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF)',

Ministry for Culture & Heritage Website, (2012)

http://www.mch.govt.nz/files/SPIF%20Evaluation%20Aug%202012%20(D-0493691).PDF

[accessed December 2014]

Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, 'Evaluation of the Large Budget Screen

Production Grant 2004-2011', Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Website, (2012)

http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/screen-industry/pdf-docs-library/Evaluation-of-the-

Large-Budget-Screen-Production-Grant-2004-2011.pdf [accessed December 2014]

Ministry of Economic Development, 'Discussion Paper Growth and Dynamics of the New Zealand

Screen Industry', Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Website, (2012)

http://www.med.govt.nz/about-us/publications/publications-by-topic/evaluation-of-government-

programmes/Economic%20study%20of%20the%20NZ%20film%20industry.pdf [accessed

December 2014]

Ministry of Economic Development, 'Large Budget Screen Production Grant Overview', Ministry

of Business, Innovation & Employment Website, (2009) http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-

industries/screen-industry/pdf-docs-library/large-budget-screen-production-grant-2009.pdf


New Zealand Equity and the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, 'NZ Government Review of

the New Zealand Film Commission', Media, entertainment & arts alliance Website, (2009)

http://www.alliance.org.au/award-summaries/view-document/414-new-zealand-film-commission-

review [accessed December 2014]

New Zealand Film Commission, 'Annual Report 2010-2011', New Zealand Film Commission

Website, (2011) http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/sites/nzfc/files/NZFC%20Annual%20Report%202010-

11.pdf [accessed December 2014]

New Zealand Film Commission, 'Key Facts', New Zealand Film Commission Website, (2014)

http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/about-us/key-facts [Accessed December 2014]

New Zealand Film Commission, 'New Zealand Screen Production Grant Comes Into Effect', New

Zealand Film Commission Website, (2014) http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/news/new-zealand-screen-

production-grant-comes-into-effect [accessed December 2014]

New Zealand Film Commission, 'New Zealand Screen Production Incentive Fund', New Zealand


Film Commission Website, (2013)

http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/sites/nzfc/files/Screen%20Production%20Incentive%20Fund%20Criteria

%20October%202013%20FINAL_0.pdf [accessed December 2014]

New Zealand Legislation, 'New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978', New Zealand Legislation

Website, (1978)

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0061/latest/whole.html#DLM23015 [accessed

December 2014]

Nick Goundry, 'New Zealand Screen Production Grant comes into effect to boost location filming',

The Location Guide Website, (2014) http://www.thelocationguide.com/blog/2014/04/ng-filming-

incentives-new-zealand-screen-production-grant-comes-into-effect-to-boost-location-filming/


Paul Stanley Ward, 'Once Were Warriors', NZ on Screen, (2008)

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/once-were-warriors-1994/background [accessed December

2014

Petrie, Duncan., 'New Zealand', in Mette Hjort and Duncan Petrie, The Cinema of Small Nations

(Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2007) pp. 160-176

Ruth Harley, 'Cultural Capital and the Knowledge Economy', paper delivered to the Public Service

Senior Management Conference, (1999) http://pssm.ssc.govt.nz [accessed December 2014]

Schatz, Thomas., 'Movies and a Hollywood Too Big to Fail', in Timothy Corrigan, American

Cinema of the 2000s: Themes and Variations (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2012) pp.

194-215

Schweninger, Lee, Imagic moments: indigenous North American film (Georgia: University of

Georgia Press, 2013)

Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2004/05 - Hot Off the Press', Statistics New

Zealand Website, (2006)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/ScreenIndustrySurvey/previou

s-releases/screen-industry-survey-04-05-hotp.pdf [accessed December 2014]

Screen Industry Survey, 'Screen Industry Survey: 2011/12 - Hot Off the Press', Statistics New

Zealand Website, (2013)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/ScreenIndustrySurvey/HOTP1

1-12/ScreenIndustrySurvey11-12HOTP.pdf [accessed December 2014]

Tourism New Zealand, '100% Middle Earth', Tourism New Zealand Website, (2013)


http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/film-tourism/100percent-middle-earth/


Williams, Thomas, Following Prince Caspian: Further Encounters with the Lion of Narnia

(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008)


Filmography:

Avatar. Directed by James Cameron. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. USA. 2009

Boy. Directed by Taika Waititi. Whenua Films. New Zealand. 2010

Heavenly Creatures. Directed by Peter Jackson. WingNut Films. New Zealand. 1994

King Kong. Directed by Peter Jackson. Universal Pictures. USA. 2005

Love Birds. Directed by Paul Murphy. General Film Corporation. New Zealand. 2011

Mataraki. Directed by Michael Bennett. Filmwork. New Zealand. 2010

Once Were Warriors. Directed by Lee Tamahori. New Zealand Film Commission. New Zealand.

1994

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Directed by Andrew Adamson.

Walt Disney Pictures. USA. 2005

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Directed by Andrew Adamson. Walt Disney Pictures.

USA. 2008

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Directed by Peter Jackson. New Line Cinema.

New Zealand. 2001

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Directed by Peter Jackson. New Line Cinema. New

Zealand. 2003

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Directed by Peter Jackson. New Line Cinema. New

Zealand. 2002

The Piano. Directed by Jane Campion. Australian Film Commission. New Zealand. 1993

Documents

Film Policy Essay