THE 2010 INDIAN FILM FESTIVAL: BOLLYWOOD AND BEYOND

Short Film Competition Winners Announced

The Indian Film Festival is delighted to announce the winners of its inaugural short film competition. S. Samson is the Indian winner for his film AASAI while director Veeran Naran and producer Lester Francois are the Australian winners for their film, SOY MILK. The New Zealand winner will be announced in Auckland next week. S. Samson has been flown to Australia this week and Lester Francois will later be flown to Bombay and have an internship on a Bollywood film. The winning films will screen in the festival and on World Movies India, World Movies Australia and Triangle TV (New Zealand).

The international competition, launched this year in conjunction with Bindass TV in India, World Movies and Indian Link in Australia and Triangle TV in New Zealand, was held in Australia, India and New Zealand. Applicants were asked to make a short film of less than 10 minutes on anything Indian.

AASAI (‘Aspiration’ in English) was shot in Tamilnadu, Southern India. It tells the story of a young boy, Selvam, who works away from home as a grocery delivery boy and is fascinated with telephones. Selvam aspires to call his mother and with the help of the STD booth lady works out how much it would cost to place a five minute call then starts saving his tips and rehearsing what he would say. Will Selvam speak with his mother or not?

SOY MILK was shot in Melbourne and looks at an Indian teenager in a western world who tries to balance his traditions and libido.

Responding to the news, Lester Francois said, ‘We are overjoyed to be the winners of the Indian Film Festival and can’t wait to fly to India to meet with Bollywood filmmakers.’

S. Samson said, ‘I was overjoyed to win this prize. It’s a dream come to true to come to Australia and be in the midst of such great filmmakers. This festival has given me international exposure which is just remarkable!’

Announcing the jury’s decision, Festival Director Mitu Bhowmick Lange said, ‘I am thrilled for our short film winners. We had a number of wonderful entries, not only from Australia and India, but from all over the world which was very exciting to see. Our judges had a hard time deciding. The Indian Film Festival is proud to not only showcase the best of Indian cinema but also be a platform to young film makers. I wish our winners all the very best. ‘

The five person jury, comprised of key figures in Indian cinema – director Kunal Kohli, director Kabir Khan, writer/director Rajkumar Hirani and writer/director/actor Imtiaz Ali – and Australian actor/writer/producer, Mick Molloy, decided between 12 short films including Red, Blunder Down Under, Priya, 12 Days of Christmas, Utah, and The Last Ride from Australia, and Run Leila Run and

Room 2611 from India.

Tickets and complete program available from www.cinemanova.com.au/festivals.html

www.iff2010.com

AM discusses the VCA with Manager of Corporate Affairs, Christina Buckridge

The dust may have settled following last week’s protests in which 2000 people lobbied to save The Victorian College of the Arts (VCA) but the public outcry continues.
What’s proving most problematic for those such as the Dean of the VCA Sharman Pretty, is the widespread negative media coverage. High-profile protesters such as Geoffrey Rush, RocKwiz host Julia Zemiro and Noni Hazlehurst have helped to make the story leading news.
Even without such high-profile supporters, things really couldn’t get any worse for the VCA thanwhen a graduating student was applauded at a presentation ceremony earlier this year for declaring ‘the people could thank the University of Melbourne for ripping the heart out of the VCA’.
But has the media given the VCA any sort of legitimate right of reply? The Age must be applauded for publishing an article by Professor Pretty that suggested the future of the VCA was not as bleak as most people think.
Around Melbourne interviewed the University of Melbourne’s Manager of Corporate Affairs, Christina Buckridge to find out if the controversy was all just a part of a media maelstrom.
In its quoting and coverage of Professor Pretty, the media has largely ignored her background. If you dug a little into the Dean’s past, you’ll find that the Professor is atrained oboist.
One could assume that given this, she may have a vested interest in preserving what is culturally rare. However, such assumptions are always dangerous.
But Ms Buckridge emphasizes the university’s stance in regards to preserving specialization in arts education and studio-based training.
She re-iterates that the new Faculty of VCA and Music (VCAM) has six discipline areas including Art,Drama, Dance, Production, Music and Film and Television. All will continue to be studio-based specializations.
The real question behind this statement is: is this just PR spin?
After all, many contend that upon acquiring the position of Dean of the VCA, Professor Pretty’s brief included faculty amalgamation and cost-cutting.
Ms Buckridge denies that this is the case as the amalgamation of the VCA and the University of Melbourne to form the Faculty of theVictorian College of the Arts took place in 2007. The new Dean arrived a long while after this took place in April 2009.
Interestingly, the Council of the former VCA actually voted to amalgamate with the University of Melbourne in the first place.
Ms Buckridge believes that the widespread negativism in relation to the merger between the two colleges is due to misinformation.
‘For instance, it has been claimed that the current curriculum has changed to the Melbourne Model. That is not so. While the New Generation Bachelor of Music is offered through the Faculty of Music (and has been for two years) the conversation about any change of curriculum in other areas of the Faculty ofthe VCA and Music has not begun.’
Furthermore, there also seems to be a misunderstanding of what the Melbourne Model actually is.Most see it as a strait jacket rather than an educational philosophy.
According to MsBuckridge, the Melbourne Model is a ‘process of curriculum development that will be carried out over the coming year and the Faculty has confirmed that it will consult widely with stakeholders (staff, students, alumni, art community etc) with the aim of ensuring the Faculty will be internationally-competitive and will offer the very best visual and performing arts education in the country.’
Another question surfaces here. Can we really trust these ‘stakeholders’ to form a worthy curriculum? Ms Buckridge explains that this will be done by releasing a discussion paper by the end of the year that will invite responses from the community.
But will this help to quell the argument that students are now required to take ‘irrelevant subjects’? The University believes its New Generation undergraduate programs allow students to take relevant ‘breadth’ subjects that enhance the core disciple.
Regardless of these processes the university plans to undertake, there is one issue that won’t go away: money. Many critics claim the administration has financial interests only.
Predictably, Ms Buckridge labels this as another misunderstanding and re-iterates that the University is not a profit-making organization. She explains that any ‘profits’or cost savings made are fed back into the teaching and research.
Between 2005-2011,around $100 million in additional funding will have been allocated towards(VCAM).
Ms Buckridge says that the University fought for extra funding from the Federal Government but was denied. While the Arts portfolio adequately provides for institutions such as NIDA, no funds are allocated to the VCA. One must ask, why?
So, in trying to make sense of what is and what isn’t to be believed in this debate, another important question arises. Can the university move beyond such wide spread negative publicity?
Will we see this new version of the university ever being praised for its contributions to society?
Ms Buckridge believes it can but this remains to be seen.