Having
recently had my 40,000th page hit since my dispute with Screen Australia began
in earnest 2 years ago (and my ban began), I ponder the pros and cons of making
the twists and turns of my battle with Screen Australia available to any and
everybody interested, on my blog – a topic worthy of a blog entry in itself
when time permits.
I
am surprised by the number of people who visit my ‘accidental blog’ but whether
or not I will achieve anything as a result maintaining it is an open question
just now.
I
am, by temperament, attracted to the idea of total transparency – leading,
hopefully, to accountability on the part of those who, by dint of their being
public servants, should be accountable for how and why they spend tax-payer
dollars as they do. To pursue the path I have does not, needless to say, win me
any friends within Screen Australia or the Ministry for the Arts. Such is life!
I
should add that filmmakers should also be accountable for how they spend the
money bestowed upon them, via funding bodies, by the Australian public.
Filmmakers who fail, time and again, to tell stories that resonate with their
intended audience, should not be rewarded with a continuous stream of funding –
regardless of whatever close (in either a personal or professional sense) relationship they might have with those in a
funding body who control the purse strings.
This
objective (an obvious one, in my view) could be achieved by a process of
ongoing assessments of the assessors – be they Project Managers or ‘external’.
Why should an assessor, an important creative decision maker within Screen
Australia, retain his or her job, if they consistently fail to predict which
projects are going to attract an audience –either in Australia or overseas?
The Hon George Brandis MP
Minister for the Arts
Commonwealth Parliament Offices
Level 361 Eagle St
Brisbane QLD 4000
7th May 2014
Dear Senator Brandis
You champion the right of bigots to express
their opinions in public, but do you champion the right of members of the public to express their
less-than-complimentary opinions about public servants in public? More specifically, will you champion my right
to be vocal in my public criticisms of senior management of Screen Australia
and the Screen Australia board?
Or have I,
in my criticisms, crossed sufficiently
far across the line of what is acceptable to warrant being banned? If so what was
it I wrote in an email or letter prior to May 2012 that led the SA board to ban
me for having intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s
staff? Have I, ever once, used a swear word, for instance? Have I ever issued
even the mildest or subtlest of threats? Have I, ever once, given any member of
Screen Australia’s staff reason to believe that if they ran into me on a dark
night, or at a film event of some kind, that I would attack them physically or
verbally? The answer is, as I am sure you know by now is ‘no’. Not guilty. And
yet the ban on me continues? Why?
Leaving aside the fact that I have done
nothing to warrant being banned, what positive outcomes has the ban led to? I
have experienced the downside but what it the upside as far as Screen Australia
is concerned? Imagine this:
I have written a terrific screenplay; one
that has the potential to make audiences laugh, cry, think, feel challenged and
confronted by and leave the cinema feeling that they have had a rich and
rewarding cinematic experience. What is achieved by the Screen Australia board refusing
to allow anyone at Screen Australia, including Chief Executive Graeme Mason, to
read my screenplay? What would happen if Graeme were to defy the board? Imagine
this:
Graeme flips open the cover of Ricketson’s
screenplay, oblivious to the risk he is placing himself at in doing so. He
finds that nothing untoward happens to him as he reads. Mmmm, he thinks to
himself, not bad. He continues to turn pages (always a good sign) and gets to
the end of the screenplay thinking, “Not bad. Not bad at all. This has
potential.”
Dare Graeme admit to the board that he has
read the screenplay? Could such an act of defiance lead to his being castigated
by the board? To his dismissal as Chief Executive?
Imagine further. Graeme confronts the
board:
“I have read one of
Ricketson’s screenplays. It is good, written to a high standard. He is a
screenwriter of a caliber that should be encouraged by Screen Australia, not
banned. I have been through the files and, whilst I can find much in the way of
criticisms of Screen Australia, I can find no evidence that he intimidated
members of Screen Australia staff – unless, that is, the definition of ‘intimidation’
is extended to include the asking of questions that staff do not which to
answer. As for the proposition that he has placed staff at risk, this is, as
you all know, nonsense. How can the reading of a screenplay place the reader at
risk? Unless you have evidence of which I am unaware, you owe him an apology.”
Graeme Mason is either his own boss, searching out
quality projects to develop, to nurture, or his quest for these is hampered by
a board that believes certain filmmakers deserve to be punished (for whatever
reason takes their fancy) whilst others deserve to be rewarded – for reasons
obvious to those of us in Australian film who are familiar with the identities
of both successful applicants and those who decide to support this filmmaker and
not that one.
Getting back to my hypothetical terrific screenplay, Australian
film certainly does not benefit if such a film cannot be made because it cannot
be read by anyone at Screen Australia. In theory a film can be produced without
any Screen Australia involvement, but it is not easy .
What about the Screen Australia board – 100% responsible
for the continuance of the ban, now that Ruth Harley is no longer calling the
shots? Will it give Claudia Karvan, Richard Keddie and Rosemary Blight and other
board members a sense of satisfaction to know that they have played a major
role in preventing this screenplay being made into an Australian film? And if
the board feels justified in forbidding members of Screen Australia’s staff
from reading my screenplay, what does this suggest about the priorities of the
board? Are these the kinds of board members you want overseeing the production
of quality film and TV projects? If so, woe betide Australian film! Such a
small-minded and vindictive board is not likely to embark on the kinds of
adventurous initiatives required pull Australian film and TV out of the
doldrums and propel it into the ranks of those small countries like Australia
that regularly captivate the world with the stories they tell – Sweden and
Denmark, for instance?
Screen Australia’s ban on me has not stopped me
working. It has just stopped me working in Australia. This is not the end of
the world. I can live with this. What I cannot live with is the damage done to
my reputation by the declaration, made by Ruth Harley and ratified by the
board, that I am the kind of person who intimidates and places at risk members
of Screen Australia staff. Robust criticism, the asking of difficult questions,
does not place staff at risk.
I wonder if you will get to read this letter? Perhaps
it will, as with my previous letters, be relegated by Caroline Fulton to the ‘To
Be Ignored’ folder. Or handed to a Spin Doctor to deal with in a letter
utilizing such statements as, “It is my understanding that the matters you have
raised have been adequately addressed and the Minister can see no value in
their being canvassed any further…” Etc. To which I will reply, simply:
“Evidence please, Minister, of even one instance in which I intimidated or
placed at risk a member of Screen Australia’s staff in my correspondence.”
If the board can point to no evidence that I am guilty
as charged, the members of the board should be chastised (at the very least)
for having rubber stamped Ruth Harley’s ban and, since she left, having kept it
in place whilst knowing all along that there is no evidence to support its
validity or fairness.
As I have stated countless times now, my being banned
is of no real consequence. That the Screen Australia board is able to ban a
filmmaker (either officially or unofficially) is, or should be, a matter of
concern to you and to all who work in Australian film and TV and who rely on
the impartiality of Screen Australia board decisions and it commitment to the
precepts of transparency and accountability.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment