[tof] AFC strand O may be axed!!

[tof at lists.culture2.org]

I agree with Steve. Worth nothing too that the FFC budgets are lower - 150
rather than 250 - which constrains the kind of innovation, as Tom Z. has
pointed out implicitly.

Part of the debate is about critical mass. Arguably the AFC strand
allocation is too low to fund enough to make it an attractive target, given
there are no other sources of finance. All eggs, one basket.

But then, what is the actual amount for the new Interactive digital program?
Is there enough in that to create a critical mass, given I presume the
shortage of top up funds?

It is important stuff that needs the input of our craft associations. Which,
incidentally, will reveal the lack of a voice for the digital practitioners,
who have been sadly robbed in the last few years.

- david t. 


On 26/4/05 5:26 PM, "tof at lists.culture2.org" <tof at lists.culture2.org> wrote:

> Part of the stated Strand O purpose is: "Provides advanced
> professional development opportunities for established
> practitioners...". As far as I know this is not a criterion or aim in
> the FFC Innovation Fund. The AFC's brief to assist with professional
> and career development in documentary makes it unique among the
> funding bodies and an important alternative to the still dominant
> broadcaster driven model.  One might also ask why  documentary film
> funding should be reduced in order to support online projects, which
> tend to have a different audience and purpose? I know Strand O has
> been problematic in various ways but could I respectfully suggest
> that the AFC consult via ASDA and SPAA before making any decision
> about the fate of Strand O? Perhaps Richard Harris could request such.
> 
> Steve T.
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I'm concerned that strand O money is to be siphoned off to this new
>> Documentary Interactive Digital Production Program. I know there is an
>> argument that FFC Innovation Fund may have replaced the need for Strand O,
>> however I am not convinced that the same criteria of innovation (in the way
>> the AFC understand them)  are actually used to select FFC projects. A film
>> like Jade Babe would never have been funded by the FFC.  There is of course
>> a different argument which can be put that strand O should be re-allocated
>> towards strand N (Documentary Production).  This makes some sense given that
>> there are many worthy first time projects that never get up because funds in
>> this strand are so scarce.  I think we should argue that an Documentary
>> Interactive Digital Production Program be allocated funds from other
>> resources within the AFC - especially given that all the extra AFC funds
>> allocated in the last Federal budget went to drama, and not a cent to
>> documentary.
>> 
>> What do people think? AFC wants feedback this week.
>> 
>> Tom Z
>> 
>> See below AFC draft guidelines:
>> 
>> Strand O
>> 
>> Some outstanding interactive documentaries by skilful documentary
>> practitioners have been produced by two one-off initiatives - the AFC/ABC
>> Documentaries Online and the recent Broadband Production Initiative.
>> Funding for these one-off initiatives is now finished.  It is vital the AFC
>> continue to support creative work exploring technological innovation in this
>> rapidly evolving field.
>> 
>> Funds from Strand O will be redirected next year toward a new Documentary
>> Interactive Digital Production program, to be announced in the new financial
>> year.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tof mailing list
>> tof at lists.culture2.org
>> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tof mailing list
> tof at lists.culture2.org
> http://lists.culture2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tof