Setting the record straight
I am writing this article after observing within our media and among some commentators a tendency for the NFVF to be judged negatively on the basis of films it has not funded and in cases where the NFVF is involved to be ignored or downplayed.
Most recently this has occurred around the release of District 9. Some commentators have questioned why the NFVF did not fund the film as it would have made the institution "look good" in the eyes of the industry through the backing of a South African film which is doing extremely well at the US box office. What the commentators should know is that the NFVF does not use "looking good" as part of the criteria for whether or not to fund a project.
While the NFVF continuously encourages filmmakers to consider SA audiences in their work, as the widest possible viewership for every film means financial success for investors and producers, box office success is not about good PR for the institution. The NFVF's Moral Imperative guides us to make decisions that advance the industry’s quest for development and growth.
The NFVF uses several criteria, a product of industry consultation, to assess its funding of projects, which is accessible on our website. However, for the purposes of this discussion, the key criterion would be whether or not a project needs NFVF funding even if it represents only a fraction of the budget. Where it can be determined that NFVF funding is superfluous, it is not granted.
In the case of District 9 no application was made for funding, so the matter did not even come up for consideration, even though the NFVF was aware of the project from its inception. This is a major achievement for the filmmakers because they have demonstrated that they can raise finance for their film internationally without having to tap into the NFVF's limited resources.
It has to be noted though that District 9 did apply for the Location Film and Television Production Incentive administered by the Dti, which was granted, and both the NFVF and the Gauteng Film Commission were acknowledged for the non-financial assistance we did provide during filming. Any journalist or commentator of good professional standing and who was at the premier, watched the film and saw the credits would be aware of this.
White Wedding was in a similar situation. The producers were able to secure both development and production finance using their own resources and networks and did not approach the NFVF for support or assistance. However, in the case of District 9, the NFVF was able to engage the filmmakers from the time of the production of the short, Alive in Jo'burg, through to the development of the script for the feature (read under embargo) and, in fact, funded another of their projects, without the director, Neil Blomkamp's, involvement.
Had either of these projects approached the NFVF for funding, they would have had to follow the normal processes open to all filmmakers when applying for funding. Scripts would be sent to a panel of filmmakers for review in tandem with the NFVF's own in house assessment and then a recommendation would be made to Council. Often, the NFVF will engage the filmmakers with its creative and social concerns around their projects. Key among these would be to ensure that the filmmakers are conscientious about providing work that SA audiences will respond to as well as stories that actively work against the reproduction of negative racial and gender stereotypes.
On the other hand very little is said of the NFVF's involvement in films like Izulu Lami (My Secret Sky) by Madoda Ncayiyana and Shirley Adams by Oliver Hermanus, both of which had a very successful run at the Durban International Film Festival. These projects are the successful product of the NFVF's slate deal with DV8 which focuses, in part, on first time filmmakers from the black community.
It has to be acknowledged that the NFVF will not be able to fund all projects submitted for funding, given the limited resources available to it. Priority will still be given to those projects and filmmakers who really need NFVF assistance while the institution continues to provide support that might not necessarily be financial as well as celebrate all South African films, even though they might not have received funding from the institution.
I hope this helps to clarify the NFVF's position on the funding of projects and that commentary in the future will be better informed and more balanced.
