March 3, 2025 deadline
General Expert Panel comments
Comments made by the panel during the assessment of applications are outlined below. Please note that these comments provide a summary of the panel's assessment and do not necessarily relate to every application submitted to this deadline. The panel does not provide individual comments.
Project description
- Panelists appreciated when applicants provided a one-sentence summary of what they were planning to do at the top of their project descriptions (e.g. “I am requesting $16,500 for production and post-production for a 30-minute documentary on [SUBJECT].”)
- The panel appreciated when applicants clearly outlined what they sought funding for, their plan of action, and provided context on completed work and upcoming activities.
- Panelists emphasized the importance of involving individuals with lived experience or subject matter expertise in projects—whether representing marginalized communities or niche subjects—to ensure authenticity, accuracy, and informed creative input.
- The panel appreciated applicants who provided clear, feasible timelines, particularly when broken down into distinct project phases such as pre-production, production, and post-production.
- For projects with a large scope—especially those dependent on multiple unconfirmed revenue sources or external opportunities like film festival submissions—the panel appreciated when contingency plans were included, outlining how the project would adapt if those elements did not materialize.
- Panelists appreciated when emerging filmmakers identified experienced mentors/producers they would work with, noting that support letters from these collaborators reinforced the applicant’s capacity for success.
- For early-stage scripts or applicants with limited screenwriting experience, the inclusion of a script editor strengthened the application.
- Panelists appreciated when the project type (Art Production, Research, Marketing, Training and/or Career Development) matched the activities described in the project description.
- The panel prioritized projects where film and video were the primary medium. Projects primarily documenting other disciplines, such as professional recording of a theatre or dance performance, may have been better suited in the dance or theatre grant streams.
- Because the panel needed to know the full context of your project, they appreciated transparency of information around your project’s narrative, budget and activities.
- Panelists appreciated when applicants clearly demonstrated their creative intent by including evidence of their ability—such as past work samples, or relevant experience.
- The panelists appreciated when applicants explained what they intended to do with their work once projects were completed. They especially appreciated when applicants described how the finished project would impact their own artistic development in the long term.
- Panelists encouraged applicants to align their project pitch with their personal needs and accessibility considerations, as this helps reviewers understand how the project supports their artistic practice and development.
Budget
- The panelists prioritized funding projects with pragmatic budgets that ensured fair compensation for all artists involved, including the applicant.
- The panel appreciated when applicants used project phases (pre-production, production, post-production) as headers in GATE and listed individual line items underneath each, rather than grouping all costs into a single line such as “Pre-production: $5,000,” which made it difficult to assess specific expenses.
- The panel appreciated when subsistence was broken out into the distinct eligible expense types (food, housing, childcare, dependent care and/or local transportation), as opposed to recording subsistence as one large expense.
- The panel appreciated when applicants included enough detail to explain how they justified their expense costs. Where relevant, including quotes, receipts and/or invoices helped.
- The panel appreciated when applicants used the comments section of the budget sheet to explain how they defined their own units for each expense line item (e.g., “Actors Fee (4 actors at $1,500 each)” — 4 Units — $1,500 = $6,000 Total).
- For projects with multiple revenue sources, it was helpful when applicants identified which expense items would be covered by the AFA, and which would be supported by other revenue sources.
- The panel emphasized that the budget and project description should align with all activities and costs clearly reflected in both sections.
- For complex budgets that were challenging to communicate through GATE’s interface, it was helpful when applicants attached a detailed project budget as a separate attachment for panelists to review.
Support material
- The panel appreciated when applicants labelled their documents as per the example below:
- 01_ApplicantName_AFANumber or Date_DocumentName (Project Description)
- 02_ApplicantName_AFANumber or Date_DocumentName (Support Materials), and so on
- Panelists appreciated when applicants submitted visual support material such as a demo reel or trailer. For projects in post-production, providing sample footage was important.