Communicating with Maureen Barron is
akin to a long rally in a game of ping pong where the ball keeps getting hit
across the net without either opponent scoring a point. The point of this exercise,
from a bureaucratic point of view, is to wear the opponent down in hopes that
he or she will eventually give up in frustration.
An alternative approach, and one much
favoured by bureaucrats is to eventually respond with: “This matter has been adequately
canvassed and we have not intention of communicating with you further.”
Or words to that effect.
I have not got to that point with
Maureen, but I suspect that it is not far off!
Dear James, thank you for
your further letter.
As I said in my earlier
letter, your views in relation to the Early Stage Development program
guidelines, along with those of other practitioners, will be taken into account
when the program and its guidelines are next reviewed.
Please be assured that this
is the case and that we understand the point you have made about the
eligibility thresholds in the current guidelines and will carefully consider
what you have said.
Kind
regards,
The
assurance, from a bureaucrat, that s/he will ‘carefully consider’ something
does not inspire confidence!
My
response:
Dear Maureen
Why can you not
answer the questions I have asked you?
A guideline that
makes it impossible for a filmmaking team with 120 years of collective
filmmaking experience to apply for Early Stage Development funds is clearly,
obviously, nonsensical. You know it to be nonsensical - which is why,I am sure,
you refuse to answer any questions regarding the logic that informs such a
guildeline. How could you, with a straight face, defend such nonsense?
Who on earth
formulated these guidelines? And why?
More
importantly, why do you not, as Chief Executive, simply change them. Now. Next
week - after, hopefully, consulting with the Australian Writer's Guild and the
Australian Directors Guild, many of whose members have been rendered ineligible
to apply for funds.
When will Screen
NSW's guidelines next be reviewed? Next week? Next month? At some indeterminate
time in the distant future?
As for my
question regarding the eligibility of a non-Australian producer to be part of
the tam to develop ANGKOR, please answer the question. Yes or no.
The same applies
for my question regarding SHIPS IN THE NIGHT. Why can you not answer my
questions? Are you accountable to the film community you are there to serve or
do you reserve to yourself the right to formulate whatever policy you like with
no regard for how it impacts on working filmmakers?
Maureen, in your
communications with me it is clear that you do not set a very high priority on
the precepts of of transparency and accountability. This in itself should be of
concern to the film and TV community.
My letter of
yesterday to Graeme Mason, is pertinent to the question of guidelines and the
impact these have (good or bad) on the minds of filmic entertainments that are
developed and produced in Australia. It is to be found at:
At present both
Screen NSW and Screen Australia are working in accordance with development and
production models that are not working. Clearly not working. Audiences stay
away from Australian films in droves. Stop pointing the finger of blame
everywhere other than at yourselves. You, Maureen, are the problem. You and
Mark and Kate and all those who formulate policies that bear no relationship at
all to the realities of filmmaking that we are all confronted by.
Ditch your
exclusionary guidelines now. They serve no positive purpose but do have a
significant negative impact - as my own experience now should be abundantly
apparent to you. Consult in a meaningful way with warm-blooded filmmakers, seek
out their ideas regarding polcy and stop creating it in a vacuum.
cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment