This month’s Power of Inclusion (POI) Summit, organised by the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC) and Women in Film and Television New Zealand (WIFT) with support from Disney, was widely criticised by local filmmakers for its cost, which excluded many of us (1), especially those outside Auckland and those affected by school holidays. Like the conditions for our writers outlined in Mandy Hager’s Valuing Our Writers article last week, this issue highlighted artist poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand, almost always more severe for those from groups who already experience the effects of the wage gap, often in association with unpaid work (2).
I shared the general concern about the POI costs and signed a widely-circulated letter that outlined alternatives to promote more inclusion. So I was delighted last week when Anita Rossbach, a Wellington-based film-maker with a background in human rights, provided a detailed analysis of the NZFC/WIFT meeting she attended with the organisers of the letter. Warm thanks to her for this reprint, with some Notes added by me, Marian.
By Anita Rossbach
Kia ora koutou katoa,
 |
| Anita Rossbach |
I wasn’t going to say any more publicly about POI Summit after having been involved with engaging the NZFC/WIFT prior to the summit to address what has always been an exclusivity issue to this inclusion event. What I’m going to say is this:
The very nature of the POI Summit was exclusive by its ticket pricing alone but also because its intended audience very clearly wasn’t us. ‘Us’ meaning film industry workers and other creatives from New Zealand, especially those of us who are more often than not excluded for various reasons from work, from being ‘in the room’ and from making key decisions about how to make our industry better from a systemic, business and creative perspective.
I know this event was always intended to be exclusive, not just because I am able to reason just that from the information that was available about POI from the very start, and not just because I know what exclusion feels like from lived experience but because I was in the room with the NZFC and WIFT to discuss this very issue.
Again, I wasn’t planning on saying any more this publicly but to be honest, after the response by the NZFC to Amanda Jane Robinson’s piece, I don’t think it’s the right thing to do to stay quiet about this any longer. The NZFC’s belittling and dismissive response is the very definition of the type of behaviour within our industry that leads to systemic exclusion of certain voices.
I guess, you will want a disclaimer. I didn’t attend the summit. I was lucky enough to have paid work at the time. At the time of the meeting with the NZFC/WIFT, I already know I wouldn’t be able to attend for that reason.
The background to the meeting is as follows:
Two wonderful women filmmakers wrote a letter to the NZFC. Two drafts of the letter were passed around their networks for feedback which was included in the final version. A not inconsiderable number of diverse filmmakers contributed to the letter’s wording and signed their names to it. The letter outlined our concerns about the exclusive nature of the event, while also providing reasoning and suggestions on how to make this event about inclusion actually more inclusive. I have also heard that others made phone calls and send emails but for whatever reason, it was our two fearless leaders who got the invitation to a face to face meeting with the NZFC, with a WIFT representative also in attendance.
The filmmakers asked those of us who had signed the letter if we also wanted to attend said meeting. I went along for moral support because I knew our query was important and because I took the NZFC’s apparent willingness to listen as a good sign. My account of what followed comes from memory and from the notes I took during the meeting.
Our very first question to the organisers was about their intention behind the POI because we wanted to understand how it came that an event about inclusion made so many of us feel so excluded.
We were told that the summit was ‘intended to position New Zealand as a hub for, and as a leader in the global discussion around inclusion.’
At no point during our meeting was the NZFC or WIFT able or willing to explain what that ‘leadership’ was intended to look like.
In fact, the desired outcomes for the summit, we were told, were largely economic. We were told that these desired outcomes were driven by:
International delegate participation to attract overseas production to New Zealand as a filming destination;
High profile international delegates attracting wider media coverage than similar conferences held in New Zealand (Big Screen Symposium etc), again to position NZ as a filming destination for overseas productions;
Profiling New Zealand’s film sector and positioning NZ as a ‘key leader’ in the inclusion debate to drive overseas engagement with the NZ film sector.
It became clear to us that the primary intention for the Summit was to achieve economic outcomes for the wider NZ film sector by creating positive, international media coverage and thus attracting more overseas productions to invest in NZ.
At no point was anyone willing or able or even interested in providing answers to how these economic outcomes are connected to achieving a more inclusive NZ film industry. In fact, none of these outcomes have anything to do with ‘inclusion’, let alone meaningful, systemic change.
TICKET PRICES
When we started with the obvious economic barriers due to high ticket pricing alone, the NZFC explained that the ticket prices reflected what their budget could get away with in order for them to break even. It seemed really important that we understood that the Summit was not intended as a commercial event or to make a profit and that ticket prices were already lower than ‘similar international events’.
We pointed out that whether the event was commercial or not was not what concerned us and that we were equally critical of high ticket prices for ‘similar international events’. Event ticket prices are only one barrier for many of those in our industry who are systematically excluded from the work that would enable us to be able to afford attending such events (3).
The only response we got was that there was nothing that could be done because the event had to somehow break even. We pointed out that the Disney Company, being one of the main sponsors, could surely be persuaded to help make this event actually inclusive.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
We were then provided with the expected breakdown of attendees.
1200 delegates (4) of which:
300–400 WIFTI (Although it’s an organisation for women, it is still somewhat exclusive by its nature given that women who traditionally earn less in the industry have to be able to afford being members. That’s simply a fact.)
300–400 WIFTI (Although it’s an organisation for women, it is still somewhat exclusive by its nature given that women who traditionally earn less in the industry have to be able to afford being members. That’s simply a fact.)
200 international film industry (Not us.)
400 NZers who you’d also usually find at the Big Screen Symposium. (Also a fairly exclusive bunch, given that it’s largely the same attendees every year.)
Any remaining: wider New Zealand/related industries such as tourism (clearly also not a category that was specifically concerned with inclusion)
The Aotea Centre as the venue choice and the glamorous branding for the summit, we were told, was intended to attract high profile international visitors who could help achieve the summit’s economic premise and who wouldn’t come if the event wasn’t seen to also be ‘high profile’.
We pointed out that this approach and the intended audience by its very nature did not seem to include us. I think it was at this point that I called the POI Summit ‘exclusive by design’ and was first met with shocked silence, then immediate and categorical dismissal.
DISCUSSION OF SOLUTIONS
We continued the meeting by discussing the suggestions made in our letter regarding how to make the summit more accessible to New Zealanders.
Again, we were told, ticket prices are already lower than comparable industry events overseas, or similar events here but in different industries, so the listed prices — $495+GST standard, $350+GST student/new filmmakers — were the best that could be done.
We were reassured that the intention was there to find solutions to the financial barriers and it was acknowledged that these solutions should have been on the table from the get go at the inception of the summit idea.
However, the NZFC had no actual, practical solutions to the exclusive nature of the event worked out and was relying heavily on our suggestions while constantly pushing back.
They suggested that 100–150 free or low priced tickets could be made available and they had a vague idea of how to achieve this financially. They were looking into different approaches: sponsored tickets and pay it forward (buy one, gift one).
We agreed that sponsored tickets would be nice but since they were an afterthought, they would only make this event accessible to a lucky few. We also pointed out that the pay it forward system, while a nice thought, meant that the burden of making this event more accessible would fall squarely on the shoulders of other New Zealand industry attendees, many of whom would only just be able to afford the tickets themselves. I mean, we’d be kidding ourselves to expect the 200 or so international delegates to cough up more money to make an event they were attending for its high profile more accessible to some poor schmucks here in New Zealand.
The NZFC and the WIFT representative were also still unclear on how to deliver those tickets and asked for our thoughts. Our suggestion was to hold a blind lottery and to target specific applicants in the marketing for the lottery (i.e. people who actually face financial and other barriers).
At the same time both the NZFC and WIFT representatives consistently pushed back against the very idea of free or cheap tickets itself.
Their arguments went like this:
If tickets are free or too cheap the event is devalued and loses its attractiveness to high profile international attendees. That obviously would have undermined the economic raison d’être for the whole summit.
People will apply for tickets even though they are financially able to pay for tickets themselves. We asked whether there was empirical proof that this is an issue and more importantly, why those who genuinely can’t afford the ticket prices should be punished for other people’s bad behaviour. Neither one of those questions was answered.
Instead the next argument was that in their experience, too many of the people granted free tickets won’t show up. We asked again whether there was empirical proof from other events whether this was an actual problem.
We also pointed out that ticket prices are not the only financial barriers. Taking time off paid work, travel and accommodation costs and child care were just some of the other financial barriers that came into play even if tickets were only $10. We didn’t get around to discussing any of those barriers in great detail because we were too gob-smacked by the attitude of the WIFT representative who derisively shouted over the top of everyone that there would always be people who could afford buying take-away coffee every day and those who couldn’t.
We skipped ahead and continued to explain that there were also other barriers that hadn’t been addressed during the event’s planning such as accessibility and actually feeling like you’re wanted at such an event (like clearly being part of the target audience for instance).
I should point out that we weren’t simply there to make our displeasure known but continuously offered ideas for solutions to both financial and other barriers. These included a combination of the following.
More cheap tickets should be made available to a wider range of people (and actually cheap, not the ridiculous existing student ticket price). This didn’t happen but the NZFC followed through on their 150 free tickets. The tickets were not distributed by lottery but as far as I’m aware by a non-transparent system of applications and selections through various industry bodies. Even the free tickets had an ironic dash of exclusivity about them (5).
We also suggested live streaming of events (with closed caption videos to be made available as soon as practicable after the event) for those missing out on tickets or unable to attend for other reasons. Live streaming was immediately shot down because of commitments to overseas and other media. I do believe some of the summit’s events were videoed though and are available online in some form.
We also pointed out that the speeches and discussion panels were not even the important part. We explained that for the marginalised voices being discussed during the summit, the most important thing was to get in the room, and to belong in the room. It was all about not only being part of change but being allowed to lead the change.
As such we suggested a volunteer programme that would allow those able to help out at the event as ushers etc to gain access to at least some of the summit’s programmes. (Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think this happened and if it did it was certainly not widely advertised as an option.)
We also suggested day passes and session passes but there was a fear that people who had already bought tickets to the whole summit would be alienated. We followed this up by suggesting that current ticket holders could for example be given the option to share their passes with other people who want to attend sessions they are not interested in. None of these suggestions were taken seriously or followed up on.
Generally speaking if probably not surprisingly, there seemed to be a complete lack of understanding that it was the people in need of change who should be allowed to lead that change, and that the very first requirement was to Be. In. The. Room.
One thing that really annoyed me personally during the entire meeting was the repeated insistence that the NZFC/WIFT representatives felt that it would indeed be a shame if ‘we’ missed out on tickets. We had to keep reminding them that we were not there to claim a ticket (6).
If it is not yet clear to you just how important it is for marginalised voices to be in the room in a meaningful way at any and all industry events and indeed be integral to those bodies planning the events, read other accounts of how the POI summit was designed and delivered, like the one by Amanda Jane Robinson. Find Julie Zhu’s and Heperi Mita’s speeches. Talk to your industry friends who would have loved to go to the event but couldn’t and listen to the ‘whys’.
I walked out of the meeting with the NZFC with the overwhelming, gut wrenching feeling that the POI Summit was never meant for ‘us’, for those voices who it purported to include and care about. Indeed, the whole event was exclusive by design. There, I said it again.
The idea of ‘inclusion’ for the POI Summit was almost entirely used as branding in order to achieve economic outcomes but has no real meaning for making the NZ film sector in any way more inclusive.
The fact that the NZFC does not understand the difference between unwaged filmmakers being ‘part of [the inclusion] conversation’ through free tickets offered as an afterthought and marginalised voices being a central and continuous presence in the inclusion debate, is truly disheartening.
From the NZFC’s disgraceful shut down of Amanda’s and others’ lived industry experiences, it becomes crystal clear that the NZFC as a whole has failed to learn the most important lessons an event such as the Power of Inclusion Summit should have taught them.
Prop the doors open, heck rip them off the hinges. Listen first, think second, speak last.
Ngā mihi mahana,
Anita Rossbach
---------
Notes
A Māori woman filmmaker’s mostly positive response to the POI.
Barnett, John (2019) in Newall, Discussion around the Power of Inclusion continues Flicks 14 October
A veteran producer has his say!
A veteran producer has his say!
Harris, Chaz (2019) The Power of Inclusion Facebook 17 October
A Wellington-based gay creator of film and print IP (Soulfire Chronicles out any day now!) who inter alia makes these points: ‘To my film industry peers, I ask this: do we really want an NZFC that tries to silence dissent from the very filmmaking community its funding exists to provide support to? An NZFC that wields power to create fear, silence and keep everyone in their place, instead of working with us to create systemic change?
A Wellington-based gay creator of film and print IP (Soulfire Chronicles out any day now!) who inter alia makes these points: ‘To my film industry peers, I ask this: do we really want an NZFC that tries to silence dissent from the very filmmaking community its funding exists to provide support to? An NZFC that wields power to create fear, silence and keep everyone in their place, instead of working with us to create systemic change?
I want an NZFC that will listen, that apologizes when they get things wrong, and that commits to doing better. That’s the only response that was needed. With all that said, that same power is diminishing. The media landscape is changing and there are more buyers open to content from underrepresented voices and filmmakers in Aotearoa than even a year or two ago. The NZFC is no longer the only show in town, and that’s a good thing for all IP creators to remember.’
Mita, Heperi (2019) Heperi Mita at the Power of Inclusion Summit New Zealand Film Commission 3 October
Hepi’s contribution reminds me of the late Irihapeti Ramsden’s graceful and powerful delivery of harsh cultural truths-with-a-light-touch.
Hepi’s contribution reminds me of the late Irihapeti Ramsden’s graceful and powerful delivery of harsh cultural truths-with-a-light-touch.
Newall, Discussion around the Power of Inclusion continues Flicks 14 October
Newall, Steve (2019) Further thoughts about the Power of Inclusion Flicks 21 October
New Zealand Film Commission (2019) in The highs, lows and woes of the Power of Inclusion Summit (UPDATED with [NZFC] response) Flicks 9–11 October
New Zealand Film Commission (2019) in The highs, lows and woes of the Power of Inclusion Summit (UPDATED with [NZFC] response) Flicks 9–11 October
Robinson, Amanda Jane (2019) The highs, lows and woes of the Power of Inclusion Summit (UPDATED with [NZFC] response) Flicks 9–11 October
Zhu, Julie (2019) I’m Sick of Words Like ‘Diversity’, ‘Inclusion’ and ‘Representation’ Pantograph Punch, 15 October
An extension of Julie Zhu’s contribution 3 October to the POI.
(2)
An extension of Julie Zhu’s contribution 3 October to the POI.
(2)
 |
| From the Coalition for Equal Value Equal Pay (NZ) |
(4) Ultimately there were 700 delegates.
(5) It wasn’t a blind lottery. Although I had no intention of attending the POI, I applied for a balloted place because I was interested to see what the application involved; it required applicants to declare which marginalised group(s) they belonged to. As someone commented on Anita’s original post, questioning the legality of this: ‘…[It] would have them feeling like they are only going to be deemed worthy of a ticket if they disclose their marginalisation’. Only one person I know of won a balloted place.
(6) This accords with persistent reports of NZFC attempts to ‘manage’ those who make principled objections to the organisation’s practices by appealing to their self-interest; and playing on almost every filmmaker’s fears that if they speak out they will be forever blacklisted.
______________
 |
| #directedbywomen 2019 |
I acknowledge that because some international filmmakers visited Wellington after the Summit ended, the POI and therefore the NZFC/WIFT also made possible this year’s #directedbywomen #aotearoa programme, funded by LMC and The Magic Fridge. It was a rich and beautiful visit and I’m very grateful for it.
Comments
Post a Comment