University film schools at the heart of creative collaborations with industry: a case study

ABSTRACT

This paper is a detailed case study of how the Bond University Film and Television School collaborated with external production companies to actively participate in, and support, the production of the $1.5 million feature film The Fear of Darkness as a means of providing a unique student learning and industry networking experience. Students were able to take genuine on-set production roles for the duration of the production, rather than conventional short-term internships and work experience, which, upon their graduation, has contributed towards meeting the industry’s current skills gap. Furthermore, this case study also shows how the production provided a significant opportunity for academic staff to have senior production roles to further their professional development. Additionally, this collaboration supports the notion that academic staff with significant prior industry experience can function as a useful conduit between film schools and industry.

KEYWORDS:

• Creative collaborations
• work integrated learning
• film schools

Introduction

This case study investigates a partnership between the Bond University Film School and external film production companies in the making of a high-concept, low-budget, $1.5 million, feature film entitled The Fear of Darkness (Fitchett 2015). As Crowe points out, ‘The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context’ (Crowe et al. 2011, 1). The case study will utilise first-hand reports by heads of departments, as well as direct verbal feedback from producers, crew, graduates, and students, plus academic staff on-set observations, provide a broad range of insights into this trial of engaging students in genuine on-set roles, as well as the complexities, challenges, and rewards in this style of industry / film school partnership. The aim of studying this uncommon collaborative model is to explore if there were any beneficial outcomes for students, beneficial outcomes for film production companies, and did the involvement of academic staff provide them with the opportunity to further their professional development.

As the case study will demonstrate, this partnership enabled the film’s production company to engage current senior students, and recent graduates, as crew, thus providing a range of unique opportunities for them to (1) gain work experience on a professional feature film, (2) further develop their understanding of professional collaborative production practices, professional working relationships, and on set etiquette, (3) develop their interpersonal skills working alongside experienced industry professionals they had never met before, (4) provide networking and relationship building opportunities, (5) work on a production for much longer than the four–seven days typical of a student short film shoot, and (6) gain a genuine, industry recognised screen credit to assist with applying for subsequent jobs in the screen industry ( Andresen 2000; Bandura 1977).

It’s worth noting that Bond Film School students have the opportunity to author and create a large number of short films, music videos, documentaries, and television commercials as part of their bachelor programme. Thus, all the graduates and current students already had significant valuable short film production experience. Working on a feature film would provide them with a whole new range of film production experiences, including those of working with professional heads of department, which is vastly different to student productions that are far more egalitarian in their approach to creative collaboration.

In this paper, we place the above six aims, and their outcomes, within an industry context by drawing on recent publications by Australian government agencies and the British Film Institute (BFI) that call for higher levels of WIL (work-integrated learning) through university and industry partnerships. This challenge is particularly pertinent in areas such as filmmaking, that generally have low levels of genuine WIL due to the nature of the production process, and the relatively short duration of feature film production time, which makes it difficult for film companies to offer film students meaningful long-term on-set roles. Although the project at the centre of this case study is not WIL in the strict sense of the term, it did provide the graduates and students with significant learning while working.

We further identify a range of tangible benefits this partnership provided the film production companies, such as no-cost access to production equipment, production offices, and shooting locations, as well as no-cost access to Bond staff, who are experienced crew members, Bond graduates, who were experienced junior crew members, and senior student interns, who had applicable early career filmmaking skills mostly in short film production. As Mateer points out, the types of benefits are far more pragmatic that the researched derived benefits from science-orientated departments (Mateer 2018, 142) Further, we explore how this partnership also placed atypical pressures on both the film school and the film production companies, and outline the project’s major limitations, namely that only a low number of students could be involved in the production.

In December 2021 the Australian government Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) produced a review document titled, University-Industry Collaboration in Teaching and Learning Review, co-written by Emeritus Professors Martin Bean and Peter Dawkins. The purpose of the review was, ‘to consider how universities, industry and government can increase industry engagement in teaching and learning through … expanded opportunities for learners of all ages to gain work experience and industry relevant skills’ (Department of Education 2021, 16). At roughly the same time, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) in Britain engaged the British Film Institute (BFI) to undertake a review of skills challenges affecting scripted film and high-end television production, which were being negatively impacted by the compounding effects of a broad skills shortage. In June 2022, the BFI published their review noting that,

… the rapid growth in production, coupled with retention issues have exacerbated a shortage of skilled crew. The Review reiterates what has been reported for some time, that crew shortages are negatively impacting productions. (British Film Institute 2022, 2)

The DESE review emphasised the importance of Australian universities in addressing the growing skill shortage in various industries, including the film and television industry. While Australia's higher education system is well-regarded globally, there is a significant opportunity to improve its collaboration with industry, facilitating smoother transitions for students from education to work and promoting the importance of lifelong learning. By enhancing this engagement Australia can effectively fill existing and emerging skills gaps in industry, leading to increased productivity and economic growth (Department of Education 2021, 7). The British Film Institute (BFI) further expanded on this view by highlighting how film and television crew shortages across all levels, not just among newcomers, are negatively impacting film and high-end television productions. This crew shortage poses a particular threat to the success of the independent film sector, which operates under a less profitable business model, but serves as a nurturing ground for emerging UK talent and is where most university film school graduates first find employment (British Film Institute 2022, 8).

These two reports highlight a need that had been growing for years, both in the general national workforce for skilled employees, and in the film industry for properly trained film school graduates. The report’s recommendations brought into relief the short-term and long-term benefits for students and industry if university programmes develop a range of models of industry engagement and work-integrated-learning. This was evidenced locally in South-East Queensland in an ABC News online article in September 2021 titled, ‘Film industry cries out for creative, flexible, behind-the-scenes talent’ (Cansdale 2021). The case study outlined in this paper attempted to do just that back in 2014.

Film and Television is an artistically diverse and technically and physically demanding discipline in a highly competitive global industry (Burke 2021). This dynamic landscape necessitates the modern film school to have an active, authentic, engaged, and socially constructed educational approach that is continually innovating its teaching and modes of assessment, as well as developing novel ways to engage with industry (Biggs 2014;Biggs and Tang 2011). In 2011 the Bond Film and Television school chose to model itself along the lines of what Banks now terms a ‘pre-industry’ programme,

A media production education is by no means a requirement for work within the media industries, but for young aspirants eager to hone their skills and build their resumes, film schools, or what I’m referring to here as pre-industry programs, provide a pathway into gaining experience, building a resume, and making contacts. Pre-industry programs promise students hands-on practice-based learning experiences, mentorship from industry professionals, and a cohort of ambitious peers. (Banks 2019, 73)

Bond’s modest annual intake of thirty to forty students into its trimester-based, two-year Bachelor of Film and Television degree enables it to be a genuinely student-centred programme (Michaelsen, Peterson, and Sweet 2009; Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink 2004; Feichtner and Davis 1984). Curriculum and teaching practices are designed to nurture student development through explicit instruction that provides students with opportunities to engage in discovery-based, observational, and experiential learning (McDonald 2020; Misseyanni et al. 2018). Being a heavily hands-on, practice-based programme means students author and produce a high level of production outputs throughout their studies, including short films, documentaries, music videos, television commercials, and large-scale live television broadcasts streamed globally (Bloxham and Boyd 2007; Bone 2010). The impactful consequence of this high-production programme is the demand it places on full-time teaching staff, as a high-level of mentoring and safety protocol scrutiny is required to supervise such an intense amount of constant, year-round production. But the benefit to students outweighs the demand on staff and equipment resources.

Over many years the teaching staff have also been able to nurture significant and enduring collaborative learning partnerships with industry. These long-term partnerships have enabled the programme to incorporate a great deal of specialised industry knowledge, collaborative work practices, and workplace etiquette into the programme’s content design and assessments. The inclusion of many real-world educational experiences strategically placed within subjects throughout the degree enable students to witness first-hand the realities of professional working environments and the building of respectful working relationships, and thereby significantly improving graduate employability. Bond’s practice seeks to model the collaborative and reflective nature of work in the film and television industry, and its resulting benefit is a constant, and evolving, educational feedback loop (Webb 2018). This drives the programme’s commitment to developing meaningful and mutually beneficial collaborative learning and teaching partnerships with industry, which leads our students to be ‘industry-ready’ by the time they graduate.

The collaborative partnership in industry

In 2014 the Bond University Film and Television School academic staff identified a lack of ‘real world’ industry experience, no professional credits, and limited networking opportunities as being the main inhibitors to students securing film & television industry jobs after graduation (Higdon and Chapman 2020). This has since been backed up by research published in 2021 which found,

that students undertaking skilled work experience in fields with generally a low prevalence of WIL … were up to 20 per cent more likely to be in skilled employment by the age of 25. (Hurley et al. 2021, 4)

The research conducted by Hurley, et al., supports our view, and the earlier work of Billet (2015), which found that genuine industry-based learning experiences, where students actively learn new hard and soft skills, and can apply and test classroom learned techniques alongside industry professionals, leads to better employment outcomes post-graduation. The British Film Institute (BFI) report echoed the findings of the Future Film Skills Strategy, emphasising the persistent gap between industry needs and the education provided to graduates. This mismatch results in new entrants lacking the broad range of necessary skills for a successful career in production. To address this issue, industry / university partnerships could better leverage existing models for trainee schemes, work placements, and apprenticeships, which offer on-set experience and contextualised knowledge essential for sustainable long-term career growth. Close collaboration between employers and education providers is crucial to inform curricula with current work practices, identify structured placement opportunities, and expand access to employer-led opportunities for students. The BFI report emphasises the need for employers to invest in forging these relationships (British Film Institute 2022, 11).

According to Teri Schwartz, the inaugural dean of Loyola Marymount University's School of Film and Television, it is crucial to create a comprehensive roadmap for film school graduates. Schwartz highlights the importance of combining artistic and academic knowledge with practical skills that graduates will need upon entering the industry. This approach ensures that students leave film school equipped not only with a theoretical understanding of filmmaking practice, but also with the real-world expertise necessary for their future careers to floursih (Pak 2006, 42). This view, that students need better professional work models is something that Hodge also identified.

As inexperienced young adults, they are too often expected to master collaboration on their own, as if it were an innate skill, not a learned one. Our students need access to the best creative collaboration experiences we can design for them at the beginning of and throughout their program, not at the end. (Hodge 2009, 19)

Thus, we recognised that we needed to find better ways for students to gain employability skills in methods other than your traditional short-term work experience and internship opportunities, where students are working alongside industry professionals, but not simultaneously supported and supervised by academic staff. We had already achieved this in the television part of the degree through the annual live-streaming broadcast of the gala awards ceremony for BUFTA (the Bond University Film and Television Awards). This is a semester-long production built into the subject ‘Live Television Broadcasting’, where students work in designated crew roles with academic staff and external industry professionals to deliver a two-and-a-half-hour, 12-camera awards event. But we had no such large-scale production activity for the film part of the degree. We felt that if we could create a film-based work experience model where students worked in regular on-set roles on a professional production outside of university, alongside both industry professionals and academics, the likelihood was that students would gain a broader range of employability skills, develop deeper professional confidence, and make valuable industry connections (Nash and Jang 2015). This ties in with an article by the Hollywood Reporter in 2006 which stated, ‘Film schools increasingly are seeking to connect with industry professionals who can help graduates bridge the gap between the academic realm and employment, frequently through internships, mentorships and seminars that provide real-world experience’ (Pak 2006, 42). We also recognised that the experience of working on an industry-funded feature film, with pressures of stern delivery deadlines, commercial investors and state and federal funding agencies would be completely different to that of working on a self-funded student film produced and crewed by the students themselves and usually made on severely limited budgets with novice actors, and soft deadlines.

This led the Bond Film School to actively pursue an opportunity to partner with external film production companies in the production of a full-length feature film that would bring experienced and emerging industry professionals, recent Bond Film School graduates, academic staff, and current senior students together. What resulted was a unique blend of external and internal expertise to support and enhance student experiential learning. The film would be written and directed by the head of producing at Bond, Chris Fitchett, an experienced filmmaker, who would also act as one of the film’s executive producers. The film would be produced by Mark Overett, who had recently produced the successful international co-production Iron Sky (Vuorensola 2012). This film school and industry partnership was overseen by Michael Sergi, the then-director of the film school, and the film’s associate producer.

However, this partnership did present some complications, many linked to the low-budget ($1.5 million) nature of the production. For example, to capitalise the on-screen value of every dollar spent, the film’s producer naturally wanted to extract the maximum amount of support from the Bond Film School (Mateer 2018), such as asking if Bond could provide production offices with internet capabilities, which caused some security anxiety for the IT department. Additional difficulties included, locking down the start date of principal photography, as we had to not only juggle the normal film restrictions, such as cast and crew availability, but also the work demands and responsibilities of academic staff working on the production. Thus, it was decided that the production would commence at the end of the January trimester, hence ensuring principal photography would be completed before the beginning of the May trimester, which provided the least amount of student impact possible. However, the core challenge for the academic staff was to negotiate crew roles for the students that stretched them professionally and technically, while ensuring the crew roles were not too demanding and neither negatively affect their confidence, nor slow down the work rate of the professional crew.

Bond staff discussed at length with the film’s producers how best to equitably select the students for the limited number of on-set roles available. It was decided that because the students would be working directly under the heads of department that they should have the final say on which students were selected. It was felt that this approach best mirrored how the industry functioned, where hopeful applicants are interviewed by the people who they will be working with. Seeing as this type of experience was at the core of the project, it was felt that this was the most authentic approach to take. From an academic point-of-view, Bond staff felt that they needed to have an arms-length approach to student selection to promote equity and account for any unconscious biases. To ensure students had already received substantial film production instruction, and had already made several short films, with the experience that had provided them, which was deemed necessary for success, it was decided that students must have completed at least 50% of their degree. This led to the requirement that students must have achieve a reasonable academic grade, because it would be unfair to place a struggling student into such a high-pressure, long-term, situation. Ultimately, Bond students were selected using the following criteria. Each student needed to have:

1. A credit average (70%) or above in their academic studies across their whole degree up to that point.

2. Completed a minimum of 12 or more subjects in their degree (out of a total of 24 required to complete the degree).

3. Their individual study programme was such that it allowed them to undertake the internship as an elective subject for academic credit, if they wished to, but this was not essential.

4. They were able to commit to a minimum of 120 hours working on the film without disrupting their other studies, if they were enrolled in subjects at that time.

Notice of this internship opportunity was shared with the entire student body. A clear and detailed description of the production, its relationship to the film school and the academic staff that were attached to the film was provided. The available internship crew roles, start and end dates of the production, and the names and contact details of the heads of department were also communicated to the students. Eligible students self-nominated for the available crew roles based on the above criteria. Each student provided the respective head of department with a copy of their resume and a brief expression of interest. When more than one student expressed interest in, and met the criteria for, a particular crew role, the head of that department made the final selection after interviewing all the potential candidates, as per a standard industry job interview. For most students, this was the first time they had applied for a job in the industry. After all the students who had wanted to apply had applied and were interviewed, six were selected for internship positions. Thus, all the students applying for the internship gained valuable industry experience in applying and being interviewed for a genuine industry job.

The ethical implications of taking current students onto a production that involved industry professionals and academic staff, and where the production was so closely aligned with the film school the students were attending, was discussed between the academic staff and the producers. We were acutely aware that we needed to eliminate any possibility, or suspicion, that the students could be exposed to any form of exploitation or undue pressure to perform. That they would be treated fair and equitably by the professional crew, and standard industry confidentiality also applied to them. That any conflicts of interest involving the students would be handled sensitively and equitably. We needed to ensure that the learning and personal growth opportunities provided by working on this production far outweighed the time commitment the students made. Further, we undertook that while on set the students would be treated as full crew members, receiving the same respect and benefits afford all other crew members. The anecdotal feedback from students, both during and after the production, affirmed that they felt, and were treated, like crew members, and in no way were they ever made to feel like they were not part of the professional crew.

The selection of Bond graduates who were to work as paid crew members on the film was determined as follows. They must have graduated in the previous three years. The three-year post-graduation selection criteria was a deliberate cap. Our thinking was that after three years these graduates would have established themselves in the industry, will have had solid industry experience, and be able to perform their roles and responsibilities well. Yet, having only graduated a maximum of three-years earlier, their career was still at a nascent stage. These graduates would benefit most from this opportunity, as compared to graduates who had been in the industry longer and had better established careers. After a long list of graduates was provided by academic staff to the producers, a short-list was selected by the producers and/or the relevant head of department to be interviewed. Two key additional factors were considered. Firstly, the talent they had demonstrated in their crew role on their graduation film(s) while still a student. Secondly, any industry work they had performed after graduating during that three-year period prior to the film going into production. For example, while still a student, Joshua Beattie had composed the music for two graduation films and the work he did was so impressive, Overett and Fitchett commissioned him, on a professional basis, as the composer for The Fear of Darkness.

The film and its production

This section outlines key aspects and elements of the film and its production because all these factors impacted the industry / film school partnership and the engagement and involvement of the students. We also discuss key financial elements, which could be useful for other film school considering similar industry / film school partnerships. The nature of the film being low budget opened up opportunities to engage students in ways that would be harder to achieve in a much higher budgeted film that had higher output expectations.

The Fear of Darkness is a supernatural thriller about a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Sarah Faithfull, played by Maeve Dermody, who had been the lead in a hit Australian low budget film a few years earlier entitled, Black Water (Nerlich and Traucki 2007). In The Fear of Darkness, Dr Faithfull investigates the mysterious disappearance of a university student whose girlfriend, Skye Williams, claims was taken by an ‘alien being’, while they were both experimenting with a powerful hallucinogenic drug called DMT (Dimethyl-tryptamine). Skye Williams was played by Penelope Mitchell who, at the time, had been playing a key role in the US television series The Vampire Diaries (Plec and Williamson [2009] 2017). The supporting cast also included experienced actors well known to the Australian public, such as Aaron Pedersen (Mystery Road, Sen 2013), Damien Garvey (Rake, Duncan and Roxburgh [2012] 2018), and Christopher Sommers (The Water Diviner, Crowe 2014).

With the goal of making this a genuine professional production of a feature film, the team set about financing the film along traditional Australian independent funding models, which meant that the academic staff at the Bond Film School had to work together with the external film production companies to secure the following elements:

1. A main cast with significant industry credits that would be approved by an international sales agent, hence Maeve Dermody and Penelope Mitchell.

2. A completion guarantor.

3. A feature film insurance policy covering all cast, crew, and equipment, including the Bond staff and students.

4. Award-rates of pay for all professional crew, including recent graduates. This included the on-set rate for a 50-hour week, plus overtime, holiday pay, sick leave, and superannuation.

5. Above award-rates for the main cast.

6. A worker’s compensation policy covering all cast, crew, and equipment, including the Bond staff and students.

7. A Safety Report written prior to the shoot, and then a Safety Officer on set for the duration of the shoot.

Firstly, this required securing an international sales agent, Arclight Films in Los Angeles, to anchor the film’s financing and open further funding opportunities. Once this was contracted, the film became eligible for selection by Screen Queensland, the Queensland Government industry funding body, to participate in a low-budget feature film funding development initiative known as The Lab. Fitchett and Overett participated in The Lab, which involved an intensive three-week mentoring period of screenplay and project development with experienced producers and directors, a screenplay reading by local actors, workshopping of selected key scenes with these actors, and make-up tests. Four films were selected by Screen Queensland for The Lab, all with budgets up to $1.5 million, but ultimately only two went into production, The Fear of Darkness in 2014 and three years later The Butterfly Tree (Cameron 2017).

With government and marketplace funding in place, a production model was devised which would give current Bond film school students significant experience and a screen credit, recent Bond graduates paid work and a screen credit, and emerging talented professionals the opportunity to step up to head of department roles. We quickly realised that this production was not just an opportunity for our students and graduates, but also for emerging talented professionals, such as the cinematographer, line producer, and editor, to achieve a promotion and take on higher responsibilities.

This period was not without its challenges for academic staff, as they had to find the time for all these activities while still delivering their teaching and marking, student mentoring, and managerial responsibilities. There was complex time management required, the juggling of schedules, and often weekend work. Bond’s teaching model, with 12-week trimesters commencing in mid-January, mid-May, and mid-September, means there is little downtime to schedule such large-scale activities. Although the academics involved in this venture would be taking annual leave during the 20-day production period, they worked full-time during the development, pre-production, post-production, marketing, and distribution phases of the project. There are clear limitations to this model, as removing academic staff from teaching responsibilities during semester does impact current students, particularly those taking introductory subjects. We are certainly of the belief that a larger-scale production, involving more academic staff, would stress the film school’s capacity to deliver the appropriate standard of teaching to students.

Fitchett and his life partner established a Special Purpose Vehicle (‘SPV’) film production company, with themselves as company directors. It was through this company that The Fear of Darkness was produced, with Fitchett acting as one of the executive producers, and Overett as the principal producer. After successfully completing The Lab, the film, through the SPV, secured production investment from Screen Queensland. Financing was also secured from a U.K. film finance company, Head Gear Films, which provided a cashflow advance secured against the Producer Offset administered by Screen Australia. Finance from the marketplace came via a distribution guarantee from Transmission Films Australia, for Australia/New Zealand, and a sales advance for the Rest of World from Arclight Films. The balance of the budget then came from numerous facilities deals with Queensland-based post-production houses, including Cutting Edge (picture editing, visual effects, and colour grading) and Digital Sound & Vision (sound editing, sound design, and sound mix), as well as re-investments of fees by the producers, writer, director, and production company.

There was no money provided, or invested, by Bond University or its faculties. The Bond Film School negotiated with the Faculty of Society & Design, and the university, to provide at no cost to the production, production offices, cameras and lighting equipment, and various interior and exterior locations. The provision of the above did not result in any direct or indirect expenditure by Bond University or its faculties. Because of this, Bond University did not take a copyright position nor a share of the film’s revenue. The provision of the above was done in the spirit of industry collaboration, and in return for the opportunities afforded the academics, recent graduates, and current students to work on a feature film. However, it is fair to say that even though there was no financial cost to Bond, there was also no financial gain from the range of support provided. If future productions of a similar nature occurred, it would be reasonable to negotiate with the external production companies some sort of financial return for the university from the provision of material, personnel, and facilities.

The film shot for 20-days, over four-weeks, commencing late March 2014. During production, the film had a cast of over 20 and a regular on-set crew of over 40. Nine producers and executive producers oversaw the production. In terms of the professional crew all, apart from the recent Bond graduates, were seasoned industry professionals, some with decades of feature film production experience, others with only a few years. All of them were willing to pass on their knowledge and experience onto the students. Current students were embedded in the following departments: camera, assistant director, art department, locations, second unit, and picture editing. Recent graduates were embedded in the camera and lighting departments, as wells as performing the roles of music composer, trailer editor, stills photographer and EPK (electronic press kit) producer / director. Each student, or graduate, had a specific professional crew member they reported to and worked alongside, as well as being overseen daily by Sergi and Fitchett.

Throughout the production period Sergi and Fitchett continually sought feedback from heads of department and other crew members regarding the performance of the students and graduates, which they tactfully passed on. Not surprisingly, the professional crew found the students’ on-set etiquette to be generally unacceptable at first, and this did cause a few problematic moments that needed to be handled delicately to manage the student’s wellbeing. It is not surprising that students struggled with common set protocols to begin with, particularly how and when people spoke to each other and who did or did not offer creative suggestions. These initial fraught experiences were great learning opportunities for young students, as we knew they would benefit from experiencing how a professional crew behaves. Their only semi-professional on-set experience to date had been the short films they had made at Bond. As is common with student productions, some of those shoots were less than harmonious, and had some degree of on-going conflict, as their sense of egalitarianism is rather high. The students did marvel at how hard the crew worked, how respectful and accommodating they were with one another, the common and regular use of ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, how there were no blurring of crew role boundaries, and how many script pages were shot in one day. They quickly learnt how little time the professional crew wasted debating what to shoot and how to shoot it, and, thus, how large the gulf was between a student production and a professional one. After the first week of the production, the students’ on-set behaviour improved as they spent more time on set observing how the professional crew interacted with one another. By the end of the second week, student infringements of this nature were rare, and the students were comfortably embedded with the professional crew. No such problems affected the recent graduates, who had substantial prior industry on-set experience on large scale, long duration productions.

To monitor the level of work integrated learning that each of these students gained by being on set, they were also supervised during this period by the Bond Film School head of directing, Dr Darren Paul Fisher. During each week of the production the students were required to submit a weekly reflective journal entry covering their on-set experiences, including (1) what activities they participated in each day, (2) identifying skills developed, and (3) discussing at least one major on-set production issue (practical, ethical, or legal). Fisher read these journal entries weekly and provided the students with additional mentoring and feedback.

At the end of their internship, each student also submitted an essay based on the pre-agreed upon title, ‘Analysis of a Professional Environment’ describing the crew role performed by their mentor, one of the professionals in the production department area they were working in. A requirement of the essay was the student interviewing their mentor – usually the head of department – to investigate their role and responsibilities on the film, their background, their career pathway, how they got their first job, and how they advanced their career to enable them to now have the crew position they currently held on this production.

In addition to these two assessment tasks, Bond received an ‘evaluation feedback form’ from the relevant mentor / head of department regarding the student’s internship, and work on the production, reviewing the following areas:

1. Relations to others

2. Attitude – application to work

3. Judgement – decision making skills

4. Dependability

5. Ability and willingness to learn

6. Quality of work

7. Professionalism

8. Communication skills

Each of the six student interns received an excellent evaluation from their head of department and were able to use their mentor as a referee on their resume when applying for subsequent industry jobs.

At the end of the production, the feedback from all the students and graduates was positive. They reported that this was a significant opportunity that provided them with invaluable industry experience that more than offset the time they spent working on the production. They deemed this a genuine learning experience, and one that would be difficult to replicate within a university setting, partly due to the size, duration, and intensity of the shoot. Most student shoots last no more than four to seven days, while this shoot ran for 20 days, plus some pickups. The students were pleased to be on-set filming for such a long period of time, something they had never experienced before. One of the key benefits of the extra shoot time was that students were able to witness the continual repetition of crew conduct and behaviour, collaboration, and problem-solving. The duration of exposure enabled the students to appreciate that filmmaking is a deeply collaborative workplace practice, and as Hodge says, ‘Artistic collaboration is an intricate dance that cannot be forced, defined precisely, or pinned down entirely. It can be articulated, and like any enduring relationship, collaboration needs to be nurtured with skill and insight’ (Hodge 2009, 19). Being able to continuously witness and experience genuine artistic collaboration first hand, involving so many people and so many departments, under the pressure of a tight schedule and low budget, was an extremely valuable learning experience for the students, and helped prepare them for entry into the industry.

The feedback from the heads of department and other crew members was positive and supportive of this new model of industry / film school collaboration. At the end of the production, some crew members did confess that they were unsure how the students would perform for the entirety of the shoot. They noted that their usual experience with students on set was usually for a day or two – not enough time for the students to really get in their way. But after a slightly rocky first week, they felt that the students melded well with the professional crew, and they performed their duties and responsibilities to a high standard. The crew said they would happily work with the students again and would consider them if a suitable job / role came up after the students graduated. When asked directly by the students, many crew members agreed to act as referees on students’ resumes.

Student, graduate, and emerging talent outcomes

Below details each student and graduate role on the film and the position they occupied in the film and television industry at the time this paper was written (Tables 1 and 2):

Table 1. Student participation in the film and post film employment.

Student	Crew Position	Current Position in the Industry
A	3^rd Assistant Director	Post-Production Co-ordinator at Network Ten
B	Art Department Assistant	Casting Producer at Endemol Shine
C	Video Split Operator	Director of TVCs and Music Videos
D	Location Assistant	Freelance Filmmaker
E	Assistant Editor	Supervising Overnight Assistant Editor at Seven Network
F	2nd Unit DOP	Creative Director/DOP of TVCs in Norway

Table 2. Recent graduate participation in the film and post film employment.

Graduate	Crew Position	Current Position in the Industry
A	Music Composer	Music Composer (Feature Films) and Recording Studio Manager/Owner.
B	Video Split Operator/1st Assistant Camera for pick-ups	DOP (Feature Films, TVCs, and Music Videos).
C	Lighting Assistant	Gaffer (Feature Films, TVCs, and Music Videos)
D	Stills Photographer and EPK	Digital Assets Assistant Co-Ordinator, Elvis (Luhrmann, 2022)
E	Trailer Editor	Editor TVCs, and University Lecturer

Of the six students who interned on the film, five are currently working full-time in the industry in a mixture of film and television roles – some in senior positions, such as Creative Director/DOP of TVCs in Norway and Post-Production Co-ordinator at Network Ten. The sixth describes themselves as a ‘freelance filmmaker’ working part-time in the industry and part-time in hospitality. All five of the recent graduates are continuing to work full-time in industry in positions notably more senior than those they worked in prior to participating in this project. For the three emerging-talent professionals, two (the cinematographer and production manager) went on to be the cinematographer and line producer for The Butterfly Tree (Cameron 2017). The editor turned their hand to producing and produced several television documentary series. Given the employment outcomes for both the students, graduates, and emerging talent, we can conclude that in this instance this model of industry / film school partnership was successful in assisting participants to advance their careers in the industry.

Regarding the professional development opportunities for academic staff, this production provided the type of beneficial outcomes that for many academics are difficult to come-by due to the pressing demands of an academic career (Kerrigan and Callaghan 2018). Fitchett was able to direct a feature film based on his screenplay, thus, refreshing his writing and directing credentials. The overall experience encouraged Fitchett to undertake a Creative Masters by Research, which was awarded just a few years later. For Sergi, his work as the boom operator contributed to the film winning a Best Sound Award. He has since worked as a boom operator on other productions. His work as the second unit director also refreshed his directing credentials, and he is currently consulting as a mentor director on an Indigenous documentary series for a national broadcaster.

The film’s performance

In industry / film school partnerships such as the one outlined in this case study it is important for everyone involved that projects like this perform well in the real world. Success, by whatever criteria, is important to validate the partnership, to justify the support of university management, and the involvement of students, graduates, and staff (Mateer 2020). Success also encourages others to take similar steps. In Australia, The Fear of Darkness premiered at the Gold Coast Film Festival in April 2016. It then went on to screen at the Darwin International Film Festival, Lorne Film Festival, and Sanctuary Cove Film Festival where it won the award for Best Australian Film and Best Overall Film. Internationally, the film premiered at the FilmQuest Film Festival in the USA, where it was nominated for seven awards, including Best Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and eventually winning Best Sound. The film was launched into the marketplace at the Cannes Film Festival where it secured distribution deals for North America, the United Kingdom, India, Philippines, Latin America, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Russia, as well as a sale to Asia Pay TV. Back in Australia, the film was released on DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes through Sony Entertainment and screened on the Ten Network.

Conclusion

There is a known need to better prepare students to cross over from film school to industry. The challenge for film schools of varying sizes is to find innovative ways to offer a range of experiential options to students. Banks makes clear that film schools, particularly those with pre-industry programmes like Bond, need to do more to bridge the gap between study and the industry,

In an era when the price of education has skyrocketed and the possibilities of employment after graduation are precarious, preparing graduates to successfully navigate the industry is of vital importance for institutions, for students, and for students’ families. (Banks 2019, 78)

Hard skills, creative development, and a deep knowledge of filmmaking practices are of course essential. But, as Hodge points out, so are multi-layered soft skills, ‘Earning a reputation as a skilled collaborator and conflict negotiator, it becomes clear, can open as many career doors as talent and technical skill’ (Hodge 2009, 29). As evidenced by the positive outcomes for the various stakeholders – students, graduates, emerging talented professionals, the external film production companies, and academic staff – this model of collaboration achieved both those two recommendations. Thus, demonstrating the model’s usefulness as a mechanism for assisting a wide range of talented young filmmakers to advance their careers, be it their first job, or that promotion to higher duties and more creative responsibilities. There are limitations and considerations to this model, such as the limited number of students who can participate in such a production. Additionally, it is unlikely that a film school could collaborate in such a partnership to produce a feature film on an annual basis, and it certainly might not be adaptable for all film schools. But, this project does highlight that genuine industry / film school partnerships are possible and they can deliver valuable outcomes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Sergi

Michael Sergi was the director of the Bond University Film and Television School from 2008 until 2023. Prior to becoming an academic he directed many episodes of network television dramas including, Home and Away, Neighbours, Shortland Street (NZ), Pacific Drive, and Breakers.

Chris Fitchett

Chris Fitchett was the Deputy Director of Film Victoria, CEO of the Commercial Television Production Fund, and Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission before joining the Bond Film and Television School in 2010.

Darren Paul Fisher

Darren Paul Fisher took over as director of the Bond University Film and Television School in 2023. After six years as Lead Tutor at the Met Film School in London he joined the Bond Film and Television School in 2011. He has directed of three feature films, Inbetweeners (2001), Popcorn (2007), and the multi-award-winning Frequencies (2013).