LETTER FROM GRAEME MASON
11th Dec 2013
Dear Mr Ricketson
Thank you for your recent letters to me. I
understand from the board that it is scheduled to revisit its decision about correspondence
and applications from you in the first half of 2014 and that it is most
appropriate to revert to you post this.
Furthermore, as per the attached
correspondence from Dr Harley to you dated 16th Nov 2012, even if
the board does revise its decision, I have been advised that you are still
ineligible to receive any further funding from Screen Australia, or have any
applications processed, until your obligation to Screen Australia of $32,626.19
is cleared. This would include any assessments of the first acts of PLAYING GOD
enclosed with your 19th Nov correspondence, as well as BILL CLINTON’S
LOVE CHILD enclosed with your 26th Nov correspondence.
yours sincerely
Graeme Mason
Graeme Mason
Chief
Executive, Screen Australia
Level
7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007 12th
Dec 2013
Dear
Graeme
Thanks
for your letter of 11th Dec.
Whilst it is appropriate to keep
my debt to Screen Australia separate to my dispute with Screen Australia, it is
worth mentioning that Ruth Harley and the Board’s ban has made it impossible
for me to work as a filmmaker in Australia and hence has rendered me unable to
repay my debt. Catch 22.
The year before last I was
offered a pre-sale by XXXXXXX (this is all well documented
on file) for my documentary CHANTI’S WORLD. This is a documentary that I had
been working on at the time for 17 years – fully funded by myself. The Screen
Australia ban led to my not being able to take up XXXXXXX pre-sale offer and the cost to me in lost revenue was $110,000. This
effectively bankrupted me. It was Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia board’s
intention to do maximum damage to my career and both succeeded admirably –
without either providing me with evidence of my crimes! Easy evidence to
produce if it existed.
I have, just this past two weeks,
been placed in a similar situation with my feature film THURSDAY’S CHILD – the
major investor in which is (through the Australian Film Commission) Screen
Australia. This is a feature that has, three times, come close to being
financed. It has not made it over the line for a variety of reasons – one of
which is the need to attach a major star in the lead role. I was in a position
to offer the role to a star very much interested in it but this would have
necessitated talking with Screen Australia – with the legal department in
particular. The original contracts signed with Screen Australia (the AFC) were
suitable at the time (30 years ago) but would need, along with all other development
contracts with other parties, to be re-done in order to ensure chain-of-title
was properly established. Given my inability to even speak with Screen
Australia (an absurd and childish aspect of the ban!) I had to choose between
telling this particular actress of my dilemma, and possibly open up a hornet’s
nest of questions (“You placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff?”)
or not to formally ask her to take on the role. I chose the latter. Her name is
one that would, I think, get the film across the line this time around. To have
not told her of the Screen Australia ban was not really an option.
Your comment about the Board’s
decision to revisit my correspondence in the first half of 2014 raises, yet
again, the question from me, asked countless times now:
“Please identify one letter, one email, one paragraph or one phrase that bears witness to my having, intimidated, harassed or placed at risk any member of Screen Australia staff?”
For the Board to ‘revisit’ the question of my correspondence it will, one would hope, have a copy of the offending correspondence to refer. Why can I not have copies of it? I have been asking for 18 months.
“Please identify one letter, one email, one paragraph or one phrase that bears witness to my having, intimidated, harassed or placed at risk any member of Screen Australia staff?”
For the Board to ‘revisit’ the question of my correspondence it will, one would hope, have a copy of the offending correspondence to refer. Why can I not have copies of it? I have been asking for 18 months.
Your comment about the Board
suggests that it is a decision to be made by the Board and not yourself. I hope
so. It would certainly be helpful for me to know just whose decision it is to
drop the ban. It is entirely inappropriate that you should have to deal with
this nonsense, this mess. It is for the Board to either provide evidence of my
having placed staff at risk, of having intimidated them or to lift the ban.
My primary source of income this
past decade has been from taxi driving. It is an income that has barely made it
possible for me to survive – especially since the bulk of the expendable part
of it has been spent filming CHANTI’S WORLD. Without being able to work as a
filmmaker I will never be in a position to pay back Screen Australia.
As I am in Cambodia I regret that I am not able to take part in any
of the consultations you are having with the industry. On 8th Dec I
published some thoughts on my blog regarding Screen Australia’s relationship
with Screenwriters:
And yesterday I published the
following – a suggested alternative approach to script development:
Given the paucity of good
screenplays in Australia – the central problem with Australian films – I
believe that any Screen Australia policy that mandates that a screenplay cannot
be read for any reason at all is very short-sighted.
Given the damage done to my
reputation by Ruth Harley’s false allegations and to my ability to work as a
filmmaker you will appreciate, 40 years invested in my filmmaking career, that
I cannot let this drop.
I wish you all the best with your
new job, Graeme. A challenging one in the world of story-telling we now find
ourselves in. My own belief is that Screen Australia needs to be radically
shaken up. Lots of dead wood needs to be gotten rid of. You need new faces, new
ideas and, I believe, a constant flow of talented people moving into the
organization for relatively short contracts and then back out into the industry
again. Oh, and a functioning complaints system would be good also. If there had
been one what began as a minor dispute over one member of Screen Australia’s
staff mistakenly not viewing a promo DVD would not have blown up into the
proportions it has.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment