Al
Clarke
Screen
Australia Board
Level
7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo
2007
8th
April 2015
Dear
Al
Having
known you for 30 or so years it is both awkward and embarrassing to be writing
a letter such as this to you.
However,
being a filmmaker banned by the board of which you are a member is more than a
little awkward in an ‘industry’ (‘cottage’, at best) in which all filmmakers
are dependent to one extent or another on Screen Australia. It is also more
than a little embarrassing to find so many doors closed to me, so many calls
not returned, letters not acknowledged from others in the ‘industry’ who do not,
understandably, wish to be associated with a fellow filmmaker who ‘intimidates’
members of Screen Australia staff’ who places them ‘at risk’.
Not
one piece of correspondence has ever been produced (despite three years of my asking)
that bears witness to my having ‘intimidated’ any member of SA staff in my
correspondence or placing them at risk. Nonetheless, potential collaborators
could be forgiven for thinking, “Where there is smoke there must be fire.”
Alternatively,
they may be thinking, “I don’t believe James is guilty as charged but I can’t
afford to have my name associated with his on any project and possibly alienate
Screen Australia. I don’t want to find myself on the same black list as James and
others who have had the temerity to be public critics of our peak film funding
body.”
On
the 5th May 2014, almost a year ago, I included the following in a
letter to Graeme Mason:
“I find it hard to believe that in your heart of
hearts you do not feel that the banning of any screenwriter is nonsense,
especially if s/he has been provided with no evidence in support of the crimes
that led to the ban.
Will you
defy the board and read HONEY? I certainly hope so. I fear for the future of
Australian screenwriting (and hence Australian and TV production) if the
quality of the screenwriting is seen to be of less importance than whether or
not the screenwriter is (or has been) ‘nice’ to members of the Screen Australia
board.
The
board, indeed yourself and all Screen Australia staff, should thrive on
constructive criticism and be able to accept with good grace even those
criticisms that seem unfair or unfounded. Just as filmmakers are, quite
rightly, judged harshly in the pubic arena when they make second rate boring
films, so too should film bureaucrats (a category that includes members of the
Screen Australia board) be judged harshly (though preferably constructively) if
they develop and finance second rate and boring films.”
Graeme
Mason did not reply to this letter or acknowledge receipt of it or the enclosed
screenplay.
It
was, of course, Ruth Harley’s intention with her ban to cause as much damage as
possible to my career as an Australian filmmaker. In this she had been very
successful. A pyrrhic victory!
Shooting
the messenger (or vocal critic, take your pick!) was a preferable option for
Ruth to admonishing Fiona Cameron for placing lies on file and, when I made a
complaint about her doing so, assigning to Fiona the task of conducting an
‘investigation’ into my complaint about Fiona!
That
Ruth Harley should respond to my criticism of her management style in such a
vindictive manner did not surprise me too much. What did surprise me (and
surprises me still) is why the board (especially fellow filmmakers) went along
with Ruth’s plan to ban me! Did the board really believe, in May 2012, that I had
placed members of Screen Australia staff at risk? In what way? Why were the
police not called? Why was no AVO taken out?
Did
board members simply accept Ruth’s allegations as fact? Without asking Ruth for
any evidence? It appears so.
On
6th May 2012 I published the following on my blog:
Why is my complaint about Screen Australia of any relevance to
anyone but myself?
I do not expect anyone to take a particular interest in the
details of my battle with Screen Australia. It is of no consequence to anyone
but myself. It is only relevant to my fellow filmmakers in that Screen
Australia has no functioning complaints process. This means that any other
filmmaker with a valid complaint to make about Screen Australia can be, at the
whim of senior management, treated with the contempt that I have been treated
with – lied to and threatened with legal action for having the temerity to
stand up for their rights. And if any other filmmaker should feel inclined to
make a complaint to Ruth Harley about his or her latest insultingly dismissive
email or letter from Fiona Cameron, Ruth will pass it on to Fiona who will tell
him/her that she has no intention of communicating further on the matter –
whatever the matter might be. In short, zero accountability, zero transparency.
And if this frustrated filmmaker should write to Glen Boreham and the Screen
Australia Board, the result will be the same – silence or, if they are
persistent, a spin-laded letter from Glen in which it is quite apparent that he
accepts, without question, a version of events provided to him by Ruth and
Fiona. And the same will apply if s/he writes to Simon Crean – a spin-laden
letter being the best s/he can hope for. And so on up to the Prime Minister’s
office. This is the issue that I believe should be of concern to the industry
at large. Excuse me for belabouring the point but all the evidence (from my own
experience and that of others I have spoken with whose experiences mirror my
own) suggests that Screen Australia is an autocracy whose tactics, when dealing
with critics or anyone with the temerity to ask questions, are akin to those
practiced by the mafia. Why do we, as an industry, put up with this state of
affairs? Screen Australia’s role is to serve the industry and culture of
Australian film, not vice versa!
Four
days before a two year ban was imposed on me by Ruth and rubber stamped by the
board without even the benefit of a board meeting to discuss the wisdom of
imposing such a ban. And, needless to say, without giving me any opportunity to
present a defense against the charges that had been laid.
To the best of my knowledge I am
the only filmmaker anywhere in the democratic world since the Mc Carthy era in
the 50’s, who has been banned by a government film funding body! An
extraordinary state of affairs.
I will not embarrass you, Al, by
asking you if you believe that the banning of filmmakers is appropriate under
the circumstances that prevail here. Even if you find such a ban nonsense you could
easily be outvoted by fellow board members such as Claudia Karvan, Rosemary
Blight and Richard Keddie who have been very consistent in their desire to see
me banned - effectively, for life.
However, I will ask you to
advocate within Screen Australia for my right to be provided with evidence that
I have ever intimidated or placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff
(the original reason given for the ban); for evidence that I have “humiliate(d) and damage(d) the reputation
of Screen Australia staff”.
What I have done is continue to insist that senior members
of Screen Australia staff, and the Screen Australia board, be transparent and
accountable and not able to place on file assertions that they know to be
false. If this assertion of mine is false, this can very easily be demonstrated
by Screen Australia making public just one instance in which I have, in my
correspondence, (a) intimidated, (b) placed at risk and/or (c) humiliated and
damaged the reputation of Screen Australia staff. Just one example.
For the record, I have, this past few years, tried
on many occasions to bring this conflict to an amicable resolution. Here are
just a few examples:
17th
May, 2012
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in my
dispute with Screen Australia one thing is clear: it has gone on for much too
long and is wasting the time and energy of too many people. There should be
some mechanism whereby a quick and equitable resolution can be reached. It
could have happened 15 months ago. It could happen next week. Here’s how it
could work. A Conciliator is called in who has no connection with Screen
Australia or myself and no vested interest in the outcome – a cross between
Judge Judy and a marriage guidance counsellor. S/he would be interested in
verifiable facts only.
I received no response. I tried again on 17th
May:
Last week I suggested in ‘A simple solution’ an equitable way not only
to resolve my own dispute with Screen Australia but a way that other filmmakers
who find themselves at loggerheads with the organization could resolve their
disputes.
My suggestion has been ignored by Screen Australia.
The front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald carries a story entitled DOUBLE
MEDIATION ORDERED FOR DIVORCE. “Divorcing
couples will be asked to undergo further mediation before having their case
heard in court,” the article begins. Having been recently divorced by
Screen Australia on the flimsiest of pretexts, this seems like a good idea to
me. Okay, so the marriage between James Ricketson and Screen Australia has not
been a particularly happy one but I feel as though I have been divorced on the
grounds of infidelity without my partner providing any evidence at all that I
have been unfaithful!
I received no response.
On 11th Nov 2013 I wrote the following
to Graeme Mason, recently appointed Chief Executive:
“Given that the ball is now in your court, I would much appreciated
it if you could identify one letter, one email, one paragraph, one sentence or
even one phrase in any of my correspondence in which I have intimidated or
placed at risk any member of Screen Australia’s staff.
If none of the suggestions I have made to resolve this matter appeal
to you (one being: http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/simple-solution.html), there is one more I
would like to make. It is that you and I and Fiona Cameron meet to discuss
whatever evidence Screen Australia believes it has in support of the ban. If
Fiona can point to anywhere in my correspondence where I suggested or even
implied that I believed CHANTI’S WORLD had been greenlit and if either of you
can point to even one phrase in my correspondence that places the intended
recipient at risk or which is intimidating, I will accept my ban and say no
more.
If, on the other hand, Fiona cannot identify
where in my correspondence I expressed my belief that CHANTI’S WORLD had been
greenlit and if neither of you can identify anything in my correspondence that
is intimidating etc. the ban should be lifted. This could be done with a
minimum of fuss and could be announced by SA along the lines of: “The dispute
between James Ricketson and Screen Australia has been amicably resolved and the
ban on him has been lifted.” We could agree that neither I nor Screen
Australia will comment further. That will be the end of the matter and I can
get back to simply making films and stop fighting for the right to be able to
make them unencumbered by the Screen Australia ban.”
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/letter-to-graeme-mason-11th-nov-2013-re.html
Graeme
did not take me up on my offer.
These
are but three of my attempts, Al, to see this matter resolved. Screen Australia
has made not one attempt – believing as it does that banning filmmakers is the
most appropriate form of conflict resolution!
The
time is long overdue for Screen Australia to present me with evidence of my
crimes or to lift the ban and apologize for having imposed it in the first place.
Perhaps you could arrange a meeting with the relevant parties in which some way
out of this mess can be found that is satisfactory to all concerned.
cheers
James
No comments:
Post a Comment