Graeme
Mason
Chief
Executive, Screen Australia
Level
7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007
26th Nov 2013
Dear Graeme
My apologies in advance for
writing yet again to you.
Alas, you are the only one capable to breaking the Gordian knot that has made it very difficult (close to impossible, actually) for me to make films in this country. I have enclosed Act One of yet another of my screenplays - of which there are seven just now in different stage of development.
Alas, you are the only one capable to breaking the Gordian knot that has made it very difficult (close to impossible, actually) for me to make films in this country. I have enclosed Act One of yet another of my screenplays - of which there are seven just now in different stage of development.
BILL CLINTON’S LOVE CHILD has,
like PLAYING GOD, been developed through several drafts with no financial
assistance from any funding body. It is a broad outback farce – one of the only
genres that has wide appeal for Australian audiences. Whether it is any good or
not is not for me to decide. However, nor can Screen Australia make any
assessment of it as your staff are not allowed to read it as the act of doing so
would, in accordance with the Screen Australia ban, place them at risk. (Umberto
Ecco’s THE NAME OF THE ROSE springs to mind – the pages of manuscripts
poisoned!)
This same risk applies, of
course, to any and every project of mine up until 9th May 2014 – at
which time the reading of one of my screenplays, the viewing of a DVD of one of
my documentary projects, will, miracle of miracles, cease to place SA staff at
risk. Unless, that is, the Board, in its wisdom, and at your behest, decides to
extend the ban by another year. And why might this happen? I have no idea, but
then I had no idea why the initial ban was extended by 12 months. It was not
explained to me. Mind you, it has still not been explained to me why the
initial ban was placed in the first place. Yes, I know, on the grounds that I
had intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia staff etc. This
allegation does not pas the ‘laugh test’ and it does not meet even the bare
minimum required by natural justice - namely that the accused be appraised of
evidence of his crime and given an opportunity to respond to the evidence.
Given that both Ruth Harley and
Fiona Cameron have done their best to muddy the waters, obfuscate and tell
outright lies, it is worth having a look at what I published on my blog a few
weeks before the ban was announced. In the context of my letter to her
(enclosed) it is not surprising that Ruth reached for the only weapon she felt
she had at her disposal – a weapon which, she hoped, would shut me up and render me persona non grata within
the industry. To a certain extent she succeeded in the latter but, in the
process, made a fool of herself – even if the bulk of those to whom she had
done so chose to remain silent. Their silence was motivated, primarily, by their
not wanting to bite one of the few hands that might feed them.
Please do read the letter to Ruth
of 5th April –a letter in which I gave Ruth ample opportunity, yet
again, to provide me with the kind of evidence that would make me look like a
fool and a liar. She declined because there was (and never has been) any
evidence. Instead, she came up with the brilliant idea of banning me and,
without even the benefit of a Board meeting, getting the members of it to agree
to the ban and agree to the changing of Screen Australia’s Terms of Trade to
make the ban legal. Pathetic!
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment