Media Insider: Taxpayer-funded Jacinda Ardern movie ‘Mania' scrapped
Mania producer Emma Slade, of Auckland-based Firefly Films, confirmed on Wednesday that the film had been scrapped.
'Once we heard that another project was underway and further advanced than we were, we decided not to pursue the project further,' Slade said in a brief email response to a list of questions.
Former NZ Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern.
Media Insider revealed in March last year that the NZ Film Commission board had agreed to $800,000 in taxpayer funding for Mania.
The film would likely have received a further $1.2 million in public support through the Government's screen production rebate.
According to a synopsis provided by the NZFC at the time, the documentary would explore the 'mania' that propelled Ardern's rise as a young political leader and how that 'later collided with a backlash of hate'.
The movie was neither authorised nor endorsed by Ardern, who threw her support instead behind Prime Minister. 'The producers have not sought or used Film Commission funding and that was important to me.'
Nevertheless, Mania had received 'significant foreign investment and international interest', NZFC chief executive Annie Murray said earlier last year.
At that stage, film bosses did not seem worried about two Ardern movies potentially being in the market at the same time.
'[Production company] Madison Wells appear to be doing an authorised biopic on Dame Jacinda Ardern's political career, while the independent Mania documentary explores quite different social and political issues in New Zealand society arising out of her tenure as Prime Minister,' said Murray last June.
'It will be good for the NZ viewing public to have the contrasting stories available at about the same time. Each work will likely benefit from this as well.
'The success of Mania is not undermined by the Madison Wells' doco; NZFC is not reviewing funding and we remain confident that it can proceed as planned.'
Prime Minister, which featured at the Sundance festival in January, opened in the US last month and will feature at the NZ International Film Festival in Auckland on August 2 and in Wellington on August 16.
The movie Prime Minister featured at the Sundance festival in January - in attendance, from left, Gigi Pritzker, Clarke Gayford, Lindsay Utz, Dame Jacinda Ardern, Michelle Walshe and Rachel Shane. Photo / Getty
It has been produced by New Zealand's Dark Doris and American firms Madison Wells and Divergent Pictures. It has been produced with Ardern's full support, including interviews and behind-the-scenes footage.
The NZFC issued a statement last December saying it was delighted Prime Minister had been accepted at Sundance.
In a footnote to that press release, the commission said the producers of Mania had 'informed the Film Commission that the production is on an indefinite pause, and no Film Commission funding has been drawn down'.
Murray told this week's Media Insider podcast that taxpayer money committed to projects had a deadline. Producers would have to reapply for any funding should they want to resurrect the Ardern project.
'I think the fact that this new film has come out now... that would be a factor that we would take into account,' said Murray.
'But we'd have to look at it on its merits like we do with any other funding decision.'
Original distributor pulled out
The film was promoted at Cannes in 2023, with Auckland-based Ahi Films listed as the distributor in marketing materials.
Ahi later withdrew from the project.
Last July, Murray said a new distributor was now attached, but neither she nor Slade would disclose their name.
'It is not unusual for market partners to change,' said Murray at the time.
'The Film Commission is not party to the commercial negotiations between producers and distributors, but we do require producers to have a distribution partner as a condition of funding.
'The name of that distributor remains confidential for now for commercial reasons.'
She said when commercial negotiations were complete, the distributors would make an announcement.
Slade said at the time: 'We are currently focused on making the film. There is no need for them to be named at this stage.'
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand's most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
Watch Media Insider - The Podcast on YouTube, or listen to it on iHeartRadio, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
National pins re-election hopes on economy
Christopher Luxon is busy trying to convince people that National, not Labour, is the steady hand on the tiller amid choppy global waters. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Analysis: Saturday's National Party conference set out an early 2026 challenge to voters - stick with what we've got or risk it on who-knows-what. It's a line National used successfully in 2014 (remember Eminem-esque?), but that was a different National, and a different looking government. At roughly the same point in that electoral cycle, National was polling in the late forties. National in 2025 is struggling to get past the early thirties. Labour has emerged as the party New Zealanders think has the best handle on the cost of living, according to the Ipsos Issues Monitor. Of course, there is a long way to go yet. The prime minister knows this, and is counting on sunnier economic fortunes this time next year. But to borrow a well-worn Christopher Luxon phrase, the cost of living is the barnacle that won't get off the boat, and Luxon spent his speech - and much of the week leading up to it - trying to convince people that National, not Labour, is the steady hand on the tiller amid choppy global waters. The government is at pains to say it can't control global events, although it spent a lot of time criticising the previous government for blaming global events. The Trump administration's increased tariffs landed like a lead balloon on Friday, and prompted some late additions to the conference's run sheet. In his speech, Luxon acknowledged the tariffs, but said New Zealand can't just "batten down the hatch" and hope for the best. Trade minister Todd McClay took some time out of his rurals session to say he's already spoken to his US trade counterpart, and dispatched top trade diplomat Vangelis Vitalis to Washington. McClay will follow in the coming weeks. Domestically, National is still blaming the previous government for the economic conditions it inherited, and pitching that it needs a second term to truly sort it out. The party's putting a stake in the ground and saying next year's election will be all about the economy. Last Monday's 10-minute sermon from the podium , which set out the steps National had taken to address the cost of living, was a harbinger of what was to come at the weekend. Inside the cavernous National Air Force Museum, Luxon told media New Zealanders would have a "very simple choice" at the next election: "Do you trust the guys that actually crashed the economy and have no plan, or do you trust the guys in the government that's actually inherited a mess and is sorting it out and is making progress before that election?" Luxon did not mention the other "guys in the government" on Saturday. That's not unusual. This was, after all, a National Party event, full of National Party stump speeches. The party's deputy Nicola Willis, however, gave Luxon a shout-out for the "energy" it takes to keep Winston Peters and David Seymour under control. While joking he was targeting 100 percent of the vote in 2026, Luxon said after his speech that it was natural to disagree with his coalition partners, but they were aligned on the things that mattered. National leader Christopher Luxon speaks at the party's annual conference. Photo: RNZ / Giles Dexter National party supporters that RNZ spoke to were largely happy with how things were going, and how Luxon was keeping things in line. "We are very co-ordinated, very co-ordinated. We respect each other's policies and respect each other's decisions," said one member. "They're very aggressive people that he's in Parliament with, but he's handled it extremely well," said another. "It's like you're the mother in the house, and you have to herd two cats, who do co-operate sometimes, and other times they've got other agendas. From a managerial point of view, I think he's doing excellently in the light of the type of political system we've got." Some expressed wariness of what Peters would do next year, others sung from Luxon's songsheet that this was the maturity of MMP on display. "It's taking some managing, but it's all good. It's what MMP is about." "Everybody's looking at next year's election again, and obviously they want to get back in. So there's a bit of leverage, and nobody's got more experience at that than Winston." They were also convinced the country was going in the right direction, and that Luxon was the right person to steer it there. "We're starting to turn the corner. The last 18 months has been the clean-up job, and we're actually getting ready to turn the tank around now." "It just takes time, and people have got to be patient. They're doing everything that they possibly can, it's just a timing issue. Everybody's impatient." National's membership thinks the polls will firm in their favour as the public look more critically at the alternative. A Labour Party bereft of policy, juggling the niche demands of the more extreme Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Luxon wants the country to "say yes" to more. More mining, more infrastructure, more housing, more tourism, more growth. Opening up more concessions on Department of Conservation land, and charging international visitors to visit some DOC sites is part of that "say yes" strategy. Twenty to forty dollars is not a large sum to fork out for people who have paid thousands to come here, and it adds $62m to the conservation estate that New Zealanders won't have to pay for. There are still some implementation issues to work through. It remains to be seen whether New Zealanders will have to take a passport or bank statement to Cathedral Cove to get out of a fee. It's a small change, and one the government did not campaign or consult the public on, or put in its latest quarterly plan. There will be more to come as parties start to differentiate themselves and sound the election battle drums. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Senior Labour MP Megan Woods won't contest seat at next election
Megan Woods at the last Election Night. Photo: RNZ / Niva Chittock Senior Labour MP Megan Woods has announced she will stand as a list-only candidate at the next election. Woods has held the Wigram seat since 2011. Announcing the move on Facebook, she said it had been a difficult decision, but she could not commit to serving a full six-year boundary cycle. "When I first stood, I made a commitment to myself - I'd only run if I could commit to serving the full six-year boundary cycle. "In 2014 and 2019, when we had new boundaries, I could say 'absolutely yes' to a six-year commitment. This time, I can't." - more to come
