Member of the Australian Directors
Guild board
PO Box 211
Rozelle
NSW 2039
Australia
6th Dec 2016
Dear Samantha Lang, Ray Argall, Nadia
Tass, Michela Ledwidge, Jennifer Peedom, Stephen Wallace, Jonathan Brough and
Jeffrey Walker
I have received no acknowledgement of
receipt of my letter of 21st Nov. I wonder if any correspondence from me will be
acknowledged? Will the ADG board ever discuss amongst yourselves the underlying
principles that inform the ban on me? Or is the fate of one filmmaker of less
importance than maintaining a good relationship with Screen Australia?
In the grand scheme of things, of
course, the banning of one filmmaker is not of great consequence – other than
to the filmmaker in question whose career is effectively terminated. What is of
great consequence, however, is the fact that having got away with such a ban once,
without a murmur of protest from the ADG, without the ADG even bothering to ask
for evidence of my allegedly intimidating correspondence, Screen Australia can ban
any ADG members whenever it chooses to and rely on the ADG to accept such a
banning without question.
Are there any matters or principle
held by the ADG board that would lead it to go into battle with Screen
Australia? Or are you all fearful of the consequences for yourselves,
personally, professionally, if the ADG board were to write or utter the words:
“Evidence please, Graeme
Mason, Fiona Cameron, Screen Australia
board members, that James Ricketson ever intimidated, harassed or placed at
risk members of SA staff in his correspondence?”
Chances are that Screen Australia
will not be so foolish, again, as to officially ban a filmmaker as it has me.
It is more likely that any such future ban will remain unofficial – as was the
case with myself for a couple of years before the official ban was implemented
in May 2012; as was the case for other filmmakers who had been critical of
Screen Australia – other filmmakers who were successfully intimidated into
silence.
You will all recall a time when
there was lively debate online about Screen Australia’s policies; about recent
films that had bombed at the box office but whose makers went on to get more
and more money from Screen Australia to make yet another film that bombed at
the box office. The discussions, debates, were lively and often very critical
of Screen Australia. As they should be. Just as we filmmakers are subjected to
withering public criticism of our films when they are released (as we should
be) so too should film funding bodies be subjected to the same sorts of criticisms.
This was not going to be the case
with Screen Australia as run by Ruth Harley, Fiona Cameron and the Screen Australia board –
including filmmakers Rachel Perkins and Claudia Karvan. They went out of their
way to prevent any public criticism of Screen Australia policy or decisions they
made to back films that were clearly not ready to go into production; criticism
of the nakedly obvious nepotism in evidence. Threats of legal suits were made
and eventually all public online debate came to an end.
Where does public debate about Screen Australia (and other film funding
bodies) policies occur today? Does the ADG encourage it? No, you, members of
the ADG board, actively discourage it, as I learnt when you refused to publish
an opinion piece of mine which was critical of the ADG’s policy position vis a
vis quotas for women. The ADG, having decided upon its policy vis a vis quotas
did not want there to be any debate about it. Dissenting voices were silenced.
Even if opportunities for such
debate were to arise again, what filmmaker is going to be foolish enough to
challenge Screen Australia policy in public? The banning of me was not just
intended to silence a critic but to deter any and all other filmmakers from
becoming public critics of Screen Australia. This was one of the reasons why we
formed ASDA in the first place – to make it unnecessary for individual
filmmakers to place themselves in the firing line; to provide individual
filmmakers with the collective power of an organization that would stand up for
their rights – creatively, legally and
when it came to bargaining with others involved in the collaborative exercise
that is filmmaking.
If Screen Australia policies and
modus operandi go unchallenged, as they do these days, the illusion is created
that all is well and that the entire film and TV community is happy with the
status quo. The refusal on the part of the ADG to challenge SA feeds into this
impression that all is well; that nothing needs to change.
Challenging those in positions of
power, demanding of them that they adhere to the basic precepts of transparency
and accountability; that they tell the truth, has been re-branded by Screen
Australia as both ‘intimidation’ and ‘placing at risk’. Can you not see the
dangers inherent in this form of bureaucratic bullying? I am sure you would if
you happened to find yourself in my position.
cheers
James
No comments:
Post a Comment