Documentary – a thriving but troubled genre

The documentary genre is currently attracting much energy and attention. Surveys confirm its continuing popularity with the public. The latest figures show more documentaries on TV than ever before. Some of the newer channels are screening NZ documentaries (including the Documentary Channel, Maori Television Service, the Arts Channel, etc). DocNZ (the International Documentary Festival) is now well established as an annual event, and is Australasia’s only international competitive documentary festival. NZ documentaries are winning awards around the world. Some feature-length NZ documentaries are receiving cinema release (recent exs include Kaikohe Demolition, Banana in a Nutshell, and Squeegee Bandit). And new low-budget digital equipment has made it possible for many new film-makers to try their hand (as shown by the range of work in recent film festivals).

And yet…there is currently a high level of dissatisfaction among documentary makers. Two problems stand out:

1. There are strong tensions between the culture of documentary-making and the culture of broadcasting, particularly in the largest free to air channels.
2. There is also a sense of mis-match with funding bodies, and a belief that it is high time for them to up-date their priorities.

These concerns persuaded WIFT to organize three industry-wide seminars on documentary, which drew 130 from the documentary community to events in Auckland, (March 5), Dunedin (March 6) and Wellington (March 7). WIFT saw its role as facilitator, as helping the documentary industry to share and express its concerns - as it has done for previous industry initiatives such as the Green Ribbon Trust which was formed to lobby on local content issues.

Additional impetus was provided by the fact that two funding bodies (CNZ and NZFC) have acknowledged that they are interested in re-thinking their relationship with documentary making. SIPF, a collaboration between CNZ and NZFC, has been receiving an increased number of documentary applications, and has found it difficult to align them with the priorities of the Fund. A research project has therefore been initiated by SIPF Adviser Linda Halle to explore the state of the genre. Researcher Shona Geary attended the WIFT events to collect feedback.

The WIFT meetings focused on the experiences of documentary-makers rather than those of broadcasters or funders. Organizers were struck by the level of frustration widespread across the community, and this had clearly been building up for a long time. Documentary-makers were not trying to give themselves an easy ride but responding to problems in the systems of funding and broadcasting that put those systems out of sync with the creative energies of our society. This creative community was happy to accept the difficulties and challenges inherent in documentary making, but was frustrated by structural problems that seemed unnecessary and inappropriate. The issues that came up most often included the following:

While the Charter was acknowledged as a helpful initiative, TVNZ was seen as generally very difficult for programme-makers to deal with. The government’s continued demand for a dividend (generally a much higher amount than any Charter funding) gave mixed messages to TVNZ. There was widespread support for the idea that TVNZ had to act more seriously and consistently as a public service broadcaster.

The culture of broadcasting (within all the main free to air channels) was highly commercial. Television programmers spoke a language of slots, ratings and advertisers whereas many documentary-makers were focused on social and cultural interests and concerns. TVNZ programmers have been consigning Charter programmes to ‘graveyard slots’ and giving them little publicity, as though the Charter was merely an insignificant add-on to the network’s real business. The network is inclined to under-estimate New Zealand audiences.

Although commissioning editors tend to have a better understanding of production than programmers, it seems necessary for them to defer many decisions to the programmers. Documentary makers said it was difficult to get access to commissioning editors, and even when they managed to do so they were left feeling that the person to whom they had pitched their idea was not the real decision-maker.

Other problems raised in the discussion had to do with contracts (broadcasters appear to exploit their dominant position), moral rights, loss of control (over the use of footage by broadcasters), and poor communication with programme-makers. Smaller companies were concerned about the need for a more transparent and even-handed commissioning process.

Broadcasters often block local festival screenings, despite their publicity value. Another area of concern was the high cost of obtaining archival footage from broadcasters, especially when commercial rates were charged for footage from programmes that had received public (NZOA or Charter) funding.

Incidentally, what the programme-makers saw as the underlying problem was strongly backed up by what Richard Griffin, former TVNZ political lobbyist, said a few days later in the Listener:

‘You’ve got a range of people in TVNZ who have never ever come to grips, or want to, with the concept of being a public broadcaster. They were there to run our organization and make money….Then you have a whole range of officials from Treasury who believe basically it’s a cash cow’. (March 17 2007 p.29)

Another hot issue for documentary makers is the scarcity of development funding, as they are required to do a great deal of research ‘on spec.’ This is a big ask for small companies, and, together with lean production budgets, it tends to encourage corner-cutting rather than in-depth research.

Overall, the number of documentaries commissioned was not matched by sufficient variety. Broadcasters like to cite the number of documentaries screened, but such figures ignore the issue of range. Television concentrates on certain types, particularly ‘reality programme’ styles and tabloid subject matter. The spread is narrow in comparison with the range of potential topics or creative energies within our society.

From a cultural point of view, there was an urgent need for some broadcast slots for experimental work, and more opportunities for ambitious work by experienced documentary makers (whose experience and insights were generally under-used).

As for funding bodies, there was strong concern at the extent to which NZOA was bound to conform to what the main broadcasters wanted. SIPF’s particular priorities of ‘screen innovation’ seemed to fit only a narrow range of documentaries. There is a need for greater coordination of requirements and procedures between different funding bodies, including Te Mangai Paho. As for the NZFC, it has moved away from the documentary genre since its early days. Suggestions for the NZFC included the creation of a documentary ‘pod’ similar to its short film pods. In an age of increased social diversity and global travel, it was argued that funding bodies needed to take a broader view of what constituted ‘a New Zealand story’. Another concern was the tendency for available funding to focus on the main cities and neglect the regions. Those with links to the education sector felt that the Education Ministry did not adequately acknowledge the value of documentaries for the classroom in funding or policy terms.

There have been some notable successes with overseas sales and overseas co-productions, but the local environment is not supportive. It is difficult to interest New Zealand broadcasters in such projects, and this can create problems as a local commitment is often the necessary first stage of an international deal. Local budgets tend to be too small for the international marketplace. Also, a considerable investment of time and money is needed to establish and maintain contacts with companies overseas, and no assistance is available. There needs to be support from NZFC or NZOA or Trade and Enterprise. A dedicated person at one of the funding bodies could help promote international sales and co-productions for documentaries. (The Australian Film Commission has such a position.)

Considerable attention was paid to the exciting possibilities opened up by new technologies. It was hoped, for example, that funding bodies could help to create websites where a wide range of NZ material could be purchased and downloaded. At a time of major international changes in technology, the Government needed to be pro-active in assisting the country’s development as a new media force. There is a danger that the outcome of the media shakeup will be the replacement of today’s professional work force by little more than unpaid amateur activity – creating exciting opportunities for newcomers but losing the wealth of experience and training that resides in the existing industry. Documentary makers experimenting with new media today have difficulty locating any funding. Existing funding bodies need a policy re-think so they can give more support to innovation. There is also a need to share information on any new media possibilities that are actually generating income. (Money is so far the missing link for most digital projects.)

Besides presenting challenges to broadcasters and funding bodies, the documentary seminars gave the industry itself a range of tasks. The guilds were asked to work together in making the industry a more effective and more unified lobbying force.

The WIFT sessions produced much feedback and many suggestions which will need time to work through fully – so watch the WIFT website for the latest information. And it is hoped that documentarymembers will continue to send in information and ideas. The seminars are undeniable proof that there is a desire within the documentary community for change, and a need to work together to make it happen.

Please click here to MAKE YOUR COMMENT on the hui blog.
Please click here for additional documentary research resources.

Additonal information on the state of Archive Film & Television material:

Sound and Light: Challenges for Audio Visual Archiving
NZ OnAir Archiving Report