tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post6051421822888412980..comments2023-12-05T02:44:04.034-08:00Comments on James Ricketson: Excellent article from 'The Conversation' about Danish TVJames Ricketsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366597246927581660noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-63507168281386674022013-11-13T20:10:41.364-08:002013-11-13T20:10:41.364-08:00Some of the above points are covered in the follow...Some of the above points are covered in the following part of my letter to Georgie Mc Clean, Manager, Strategy, Research and Communications at Screen Australia<br /><br />"There are aspects of this sponsorship that concern me and other filmmakers I have spoken with. I have expressed my concerns in an Opinion Piece – a draft of which is to be found enclosed.<br /><br />In the ‘arts, culture and creative industries section” in which we filmmakers work (producers, directors, screenwriters etc) can there be genuine ‘discussion, debate’ if the only people able to generate discussion and debates are academics who are not practicing filmmakers? Would Screen Australia’s $50,000 be better spent on a website on which the thoughts of practicing filmmakers were also welcome? Surely, the initiation of ‘discussion, debate’ should not be limited to either academics or practicing filmmakers but should be open, in a free market of ideas, to anyone with good, confronting, insightful and perhaps ‘dangerous’ ideas?<br /><br />You will have noted at least two things from the comments made in response to Tim Burrows’ piece. One is just how many filmmakers are critical of, suspicious, of Screen Australia’s motives in this sponsorship deal. The other is just how many filmmakers choose to remain anonymous. The reason for this, you must be aware, is that filmmakers are, with some justification, fearful of biting one of the few hands that will feed them. This is an unfortunate state of affairs.<br /><br />My own belief is that there should be at least one online forum (preferably more) where all involved in Australian film and TV can both contribute as writers (generating ‘discussion, debate’) and take part in the ensuing ‘discussion, debate’, using their own names, without fear of retribution. Such open dialogue is essential in the collaborative medium in which we all work and in an era in which the rules of the digital game change with frightening rapidity."<br /><br />I await a response from Georgie to my questions before completing my article.<br /><br />On the question of anonymity, two points: If everyone who made a comment put their names to what they have to say it would be much harder for any one person to be victimised. Insisting that comments be attributable to someone (who is registered) heightens the tenor of debate by keeping out of it those who just want to let off steam or have an axe to grind.<br />James Ricketsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-11039156760892309682013-11-13T19:08:56.367-08:002013-11-13T19:08:56.367-08:00You of all people, James, should know why I prefer...You of all people, James, should know why I prefer to remain anonymous. (I am 'Anonymous 2'). I have a mortgage and kinds in school. I cannot afford to offend Screen Australia power brokers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-84222158110720380432013-11-13T14:52:51.659-08:002013-11-13T14:52:51.659-08:00Why do you both write anonymously? Is it not a lit...Why do you both write anonymously? Is it not a little cowardly to make your criticisms in such a way as to make you unaccountable? As for the lack of comments, I suspect that existence of ‘The Conversation’ is still unknown to many in Australian film and TV. I am sure, with Facebook, other social media, blogs and word of mouth that regular readers will arrive before too long. It will be interesting to see how many hits the film and TV segments of The Conversation gets. My main concern with ‘The Conversation’ is that only academics can write for it.James Ricketsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-89627236098918538082013-11-13T14:41:11.237-08:002013-11-13T14:41:11.237-08:00Why did Screen Australia invest $50,000 in a websi...Why did Screen Australia invest $50,000 in a website dealing with film and TV business when we already have two online journals that deal specifically with film and TV and which, judging by the comments, are read by many within the industry? Why not give the money to Encore and IF? Did ‘The Conversation’ apply for the money or did Screen Australia approach ‘The Conversation’ with ‘branding’ in mind? And why was the decision to make this $50,000 gift to ‘he Conversation’ run by the Screen Australia Board first? It all seems very fishy to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-30467530140772748702013-11-13T14:00:21.451-08:002013-11-13T14:00:21.451-08:00Judging from the comments it does not seem that th...Judging from the comments it does not seem that there are many in the film and TV industries that are reading The Conversation. Has Screen Austalia's 50 grand been well spent. I could sure use it, but then I am a filmmaker and not an academic!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711474060981003322.post-63497448607670179792013-11-13T13:04:55.513-08:002013-11-13T13:04:55.513-08:00The Danes have made it clear that telling stories ...The Danes have made it clear that telling stories deeply rooted in Danish culture need not make such stories parochial or act as an impediment to international success.<br /><br />We filmmakers and the bureaucrats who have such a huge impact on the kinds of stories we tell would do well to bear in mind that as far back as 1963 the Senate Select Committee Report on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for television felt that there was: <br /><br />“a responsibility to protect an industry with a strong cultural element.” <br /><br />In the late 60’s and early 70’s the various bodies involved in providing the industry with a philosophical base stressed that: <br />“The industry (should be) pre-eminently Australian in character, not dominated by other cultures; that government sponsorship would support ‘film and television projects of quality’ and produce ‘distinctively Australian’ films that would ‘provide the Australian people with a national voice and a record of their way of life.”<br /><br />The Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission declared that,<br /><br />“Australia, as a nation, cannot accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the current flood of other nations’ productions on our screens without it constituting a very serious threat to our national identity. The Commission should actively encourage the making of those films of high artistic or conceptual value which may or may not be regarded at the time as conforming to the current criteria of genre, style or taste, but which have cultural, artistic or social relevance. Some may not become commercially successful ventures, but these may include films which posterity will regard as some of the most significant films made by and for Australians. Profit and entertainment on the one hand and artistic standards and integrity on the other, are not mutually exclusive. In the long term the establishment of a quality Australian output is more important for a profitable, soundly based industry that the production exclusively as what might be regarded as sure fire box office formula hits."<br /><br />The Danes have shown that we can both be true to these ideals, entertain local and international audiences and perhaps even make some money in the process.James Ricketsonnoreply@blogger.com