letter to Claudia Karvan re my 22nd May SHIPS IN THE NIGHT script development application

Claudia Karvan

Screen Australia Board Member

Level 4

150 William St

Woolloomooloo                                                                            

22^nd May 2013

Dear Claudia

My letter to the Script Development section of Screen Australia speaks for itself.

I have had no trouble at all finding actors prepared to work for nothing on SHIPS IN THE NIGHT and intend to make the film for virtually no budget at all if need be.

I have not included any money for myself in my $5,400 development budget so I will not suffer at all financially if Screen Australia decides to refuse to consider my application on the grounds that I remain a banned filmmaker! It will be the actors who do not get paid for the readings who will suffer financially. The casting consultant and actors – all of whom are keen (if they get the roles) to work for nothing on SHIPS – are mystified as to why I have been banned! This is, of course, the case for the bulk of my fellow filmmakers – with the exception of those who steadfastly believe that Ruth Harley, yourself and the other Board members would not impose a ban on me for no reason.

It is far too late now for you or Rachel or Richard (or any member of the Board) to apologize for imposing and maintaining a ban on me based on no evidence at all. However, you might at least, individually and/or collectively, have the decency to acknowledge that Ruth Harley and the Board were wrong to impose the ban in the first place.

Or, if such public acknowledgement would involve too much egg on all of your faces, why not just quietly lift the ban with no comment?

Alternatively,  if you have evidence that I have intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff, please do make this evidence public so that I can, deservedly, be  pilloried by my fellow filmmakers.

best wises

James Ricketson

Two weeks later

It comes as no surprise that Claudia, Rachel Perkins and Richard Keddie (to whom I also sent the same letter) have refused to even acknowledge receipt of it. It comes as no surprise that Screen Australia has not acknowledged receipt of my application or responded in any way to it. Not only am I a banned filmmaker, persona non grata, I have now virtually ceased to exist as far as Screen Australia is concerned. And why? The stated reason is that reason is that I have, in my correspondence, intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. No evidence has ever been provided in support of this proposition because there is no evidence. I am not guilty. But being ‘not guilty’ is irrelevant in the eyes of Screen Australia’s senior management, the Screen Australia Board and Minister for the Arts Simon Crean.

What has actually happened here is that (a) I have been a vocal and public critic of Screen Australia and (b) I have accused both Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron of lying in a pubic forum.

Apropos (a) the purpose of the ban on me was not just to silence me but to send a clear message to anyone else in the film community who might wish to follow suit:

“Don’t criticize us in public or you will regret it.”

As for (b), if I am lying about Ruth and Fiona playing fast and loose with the truth this would be so easy to demonstrate by their simply backing up their assertions about what I have written in my correspondence with actual evidence. Given that all of my communication with Screen Australia has been via letters and emails this would be incredibly easy.

“On such and such a date Mr Ricketson wrote XXX and on such and such a date Mr Ricketson wrote Y and on such and such a date Mr Ricketson wrote ZZZ.”

Three examples would be sufficient to prove fairly conclusively that I was guilty as charged. And I would not be able to deny that I had written such words as they would be on file. The public release of this one paragraph would demolish me; destroy my credibility entirely. (b) will never happen because Fiona Cameron and Ruth Harley will never find on file anything in my correspondence that bears witness to my having intimidated or placed At risk anyone within Screen Australia.

One would like to think that when there is cogent evidence that the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive have lied, that the Board of the publicly funded entity such as SA would insist that both either provide evidence of the existence of intimidating correspondence or apologize for having placed false statements on record! But no, the Screen Australia Board likewise has no interest in evidence, in providing the filmmaker charged with serious offenses an opportunity to be appraised of the evidence in support of the charges or an opportunity to defend himself against them.

Why is this? This question has puzzled me a good deal this past year and the only explanation I have been able to come up with that makes any sense is that on 10^th May last year the Board simply ratified Ruth Harley’s ban without asking for evidence in support of it. This would not have been an unreasonable position to take. After all, the Screen Australia Board should be able to believe that its Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive provide it with accurate information upon which Board Members can make informed decisions.

At some point shortly after 10^th May it must have become apparent to the Board that there was no evidence of my having intimidated or placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff so why didn’t the Board lift the ban and apologize?

I can only presume (because no other explanation occurs to me) that the Board felt it could not reverse the decision it had made without considerable egg on the faces of the members for having made an ill judged decision in the first place. And so it has been, if my theory is correct, for the past year. Now, of course, any reversal of the Board’s decision would highlight the fact that it has known all this time that I was banned on the basis of false charges – not a good look for a Board that has to make decisions involving millions of dollars of Australian tax-payers money. The question could (and of course should) be raised:

“If this is an example of the due diligence the Screen Australia Board shows in banning a filmmaker, what due diligence is applied to decisions relating to the allocation of large sums of money to select members of the film industry.”

I write ‘select’ because, clearly, only a relatively small number of film and television projects can be blessed with Screen Australia funding – either in the development or production phases. If a filmmaker can be banned by the Chief Executive on a whim, no questions asked, what is to prevent this same Chief Executive applying her whimsical nature to blessing a project with Screen Australia funding? If the Screen Australia Board asks no questions but simply believes what the Chief Executive tells them, (not an unreasonable position to take) how can we in the industry ever be sure that projects have been funded on their merits and not on the basis of the Chief Executive’s whims?

Whilst my being banned is a nuisance for me it is not the end of the world. Script writing is not a capital intensive occupation (though documentary filmmaking is, alas) and I continue to write my screenplays. What is important here is not the fate of one individual filmmaker but that, in the absence of a functioning complaints system, with a Chief Executive and Chief Operating officer who play fast and loose with the truth and with a Board that is not interested in facts, in evidence, the stage is set for all sorts of corruption to occur within Screen Australia.

To be clear here. I am not suggesting that there is corruption within Screen Australia. What I am saying, however, is that there are no mechanisms in place to prevent such corruption.

If, instead of being a filmmaker merely fighting for my right to be provided with evidence of my crimes, I were a whistle-blower with evidence of corruption within Screen Australia, what do you think would happen to me if I wrote to the Screen Australia Board? To the Minister for the Arts?

Any fellow filmmaker with cogent evidence of corruption (just as I have cogent evidence of lying) who wished to do battle with Screen Australia’s senior management would only have to look at what has happened to me to get some sense of what he or she had in store for them. So, would they speak out or remain silent? If they wished to keep working within the film industry they would be well advised to keep their evidence to themselves. Is this what is happening? Or, to phrase the question in a different way:

“Why is it that the film industry as a whole has taken no interest at all in my having been banned? Can the industry not see, if I am not guilty as charged, what a dangerous precedent has been set here?”

Development application by a banned filmmaker!

My application to Screen Australia of last week has, predictably, been ignored! 

Script Development

Screen Australia

Level 4

150 William St

Woolloomooloo 2011 

22nd May 2013

Dear Script Development

re SHIPS IN THE NIGHT

Despite having been banned by Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board from making any applications at all to SA, I am making an application anyway to test the waters. If Script Development chooses to refuse to accept my application I trust that I will be given evidence-based reasons why I was banned in the first place.

Ruth Harley’s ban is based on the premise that I have, in my correspondence with SA, harassed, intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. This is nonsense. It is a lie. I have been asking, for more than a year now, for Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board to provide me with one paragraph, one sentence, one phrase or even a couple of words that bear witness to the crimes I have been accused and found guilty of. Neither Ruth Harley nor the Board believes that it is necessary to provide me or anyone else with evidence. Allegations are all that are required under Ruth Harley’s stewardship of Screen Australia.

I have continued to work as a filmmaker despite Ruth Harley and the Board’s ban. Being blacklisted by Screen Australia does not make this easy but then filmmaking for an independent filmmaker has never been easy so this ban, born of Ruth Harley’s desire for revenge on a vocal critic, is not the end of the world. I will still be making films when Ruth Harley is a dim (and rather unpleasant) memory for all in the film industry who have endured her reign this past five years.

I have written half a dozen drafts of various screenplays whilst officially a ‘banned filmmaker’ this past 12 months and will now produce one of these screenplays (SHIPS IN THE NIGHT) as a very low budget feature film. My first task is to cast the film whilst, at the same time, doing readings of the screenplay with professional actors to find out what is a working, what is not working and what may be improved as far as dialogue is concerned. I have a list of actors interested in being involved in these readings. With a cast in place and some test scenes I will seek to raise as much money as I can for the film – in the full knowledge that Screen Australia’s ban (whether it is in place officially or unofficially) will not help me in this endeavor.

To this end I am applying to Screen Australia for $5,400 to conduct these readings in the not too distant future.

best wishes

James Ricketson

for Senator George Brandis, Minister for the Arts in waiting!

The Hon George Brandis MP

Shadow Minister for the Arts

Commonwealth Parliament Offices

Level 361 Eagle St

Brisbane QLD 4000       

22nd May 2013                                                                                 

Dear Senator Brandis

In a few months you will be Minister for the Arts and, no doubt, will be inundated with advice from all quarters on what needs to be done to improve the delivery of government funding to the Arts sector. My suggestion: Insist that senior bureaucrats be transparent and accountable for their actions and have zero tolerance for those that are not and who use spin or outright lies to justify their actions or cover for their incompetence.

In the case of Screen Australia what is required is a functioning complaints system that is run quite independently of SA itself – one that is totally impartial in its deliberations, basing its findings on facts, on evidence and not on hearsay or unsubstantiated allegations.

From the day I was banned by Screen Australia, on 10^th May 2012, I have stated, repeatedly, that I deserve to be banned if I have intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff with my correspondence. However, I have also asked repeatedly that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, the evidence that I am guilty of such crimes to be made public. It is not appropriate (indeed it is quite unfair) to convict anyone without providing the accused with evidence of his crimes and with no opportunity to defend himself. I have maintained for a year (and still maintain) that I have never intimidated or placed at risk any member of Screen Australia’s staff in my correspondence or in any other manner. If I am lying in making this assertion, Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board can demonstrate this very easily be releasing to both myself and the industry one paragraph, one sentence or even just the conjunction of a few words that speak to the proposition that I am guilty as charged. If they can do so it is appropriate that I be held accountable for my actions; that I be banned and shunned by my fellow filmmakers.

In the grand scheme of things my being banned is of no great consequence to anyone other than myself. What it represents, however – a lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the Chief Executive and the Screen Australia Board – should, I believe, be of concern to you as Minister for the Arts.

If my ban is still in place when you become Minister I will make a formal request that you provide me with evidence of the crimes that led to my ban or that you insist Screen Australia lift the ban and acknowledge that it should never have been  imposed in the first place without SA providing evidence in support of it.

The enclosed letter to Screen Australia speaks for itself.

best wishes

James Ricketson

UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY!

My ban turned one year old today. On this day, a year ago, Ruth Harley informed me that I had been banned from making any applications at all to Screen Australia as a result of my having harassed, intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia's staff. A year later, many letters later, many blog entries later, two arrests later and a weekend in jail, I have still not been provided with one scintilla  of evidence that I have ever intimidated or placed at risk anyone at Screen Australia. As for the 'harassment' accusation, I suppose I am guilty of this in much the same way as Kate McClymont is guilty of harassing Eddie Obeid by continuing to ask questions that raise serious doubts about his honesty. McClymont's 'harassment' of Obeid have borne fruits. Mine of Ruth Harley have not! Such is life.

As I have written many times, if I am guilty of intimidating Screen Australia staff, if I am guilty of placing anyone within the organisation at risk, my being banned is entirely deserved. It would have been appropriate a year ago, I think, if the industry as a whole (or some body representing it) had asked Ruth Harley to please produce evidence of the crimes for which I had been banned and which I denied having committed. If Ruth had produced the evidence I would have looked both a fool and a liar and would, a year ago, suffered the damage to my reputation that I deserved. If Ruth had not produced the evidence (and she newer has,because never asked by anyone other than myself) it would be her reputation that took a king hit. Alas, not one person within the film industry, not one organisation, not one film publication, felt that this simple question of Ruth was worth asking. A dreadful form of cowardice. 

The reason why the question should have been asked has nothing to do with me,whether my fellow filmmakers like or respect men, but to do with principal. Senior Management of a tax-payer funded organisation such as Screen Australia should not be able to damage the career of a filmmaker as mine has been with impunity. Senior Management should not be able to either punish those whom they consider to be 'enemies' or to reward those who are 'friends'.

Hopefully Ruth's replacement will be someone with a commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability; someone who will, amongst other things, either provide me with evidence of my having intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia;s staff or lift the ban and offer me an apology. Such a move would, of course, require the imprimatur of the Board - three fellow filmmakers of which have made it quite clear that they do not believe that I am entitled to be provided with evidence of my crimes. Shame on thou Rachel, Claudia and Richard! 

for Claudia Karvan, Rachel Perkins and Richard Keddie

Dear Claudia, Rachel and Richard

As I imagine has happened for all three of you, it is often the case that a story  finds you, as a filmmaker, and not the other way around.

The story of Zia and Brozzie found me one night a few weeks ago when the phone rang and a friend asked me if I could offer refuge to a mother and daughter ‘in trouble’. Without mentioning their names he described in brief the trouble they were in – on the run from the FBI, Interpol and the Australian Federal Police as a result of the mother having abducted her daughter in Los Angeles a decade ago. He could think of no-one else, my friend told, whom he could turn to this late at night who would be prepared to provide these fugitives with a safe haven. It took me all of five seconds to say yes. Needless to say my instinct as a filmmaker was, “There may be a great story here.”

There was a great story. For more than two weeks I had Zia (the mum) and Layla (her delightful 11 year old daughter) lived in my house. I did a lot of filming (it is an incredible story) but then the dad of Layla, Brozzie, turned up with a Today Tonight film crew. He had managed something that the FBI, Interpol and the Australian Federal Police had not been able to manage – to find his daughter. It took him 10 years but he found her. How Brozzie got to know that Zia and Layla were living in my house is a story in itself and not to be gone into here.

Having found Layla, Brozzi then did all he could to drop all charges against Zia – negotiating with authorities on three continents to guarantee that Zia did not wind up in jail and that she would be free to leave Australia. On top of this, he gave Zia sole custody of their daughter. Why would a father do this after spending 10 years and a million dollars to find his daughter? The answer is simply, though it probably won’t occur to you immediately. You will have to wait to see the film!

One brief account of what has happened this past 10 days can be found at:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/fugitive-mum-camilla-ellefsen-lunetta-free-to-leave-country/story-fnet08ui-1226631566048

I now have Zia’s story and Brozzi’s story partially recorded and it is an extraordinary one – all the more extraordinary given that Zia is a talented musician who has managed to practice her art in Australia whilst home schooling her daughter on the run in Australia this past 8 or so years.

I mention these details only to make the point that, as a banned filmmaker, I am not able to make any application to Screen Australia to take this extraordinary story to the next stage in its development. And why is this? Because the three of you, along with your non-filmmaking Board colleagues, have endorsed a ban placed on me by Ruth Harley that you know to be based on a lie – namely that I have intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. Why you have endorsed Ruth’s lie this is a mystery to me. Perhaps it serves your individual careers best to go along with whatever the Screen Australia Executive decrees. Or perhaps you are, all three of you, so self-absorbed that you simply don’t care one way or the other that a fellow filmmaker is treated this way by a woman whose relationship to truth and facts is tenuous to say the least.  Or perhaps it is simply, despite your knowing Ruth to be a liar, that you would have too much egg on your faces if you were, a year down the track (a year in a few days) to admit that the Screen Australia Board had screwed up badly by endorsing Ruth’s ban on me in the absence of evidence of my having intimidated or placed anyone at risk. Your actions, or your lack of action (the end result is the same) cost me $130,000 in lost revenue for a documentary that I have now been working on (with my own financial resources) for 18 years – CHANTI’S WORLD. As with my doco about Zia and Brozzi, CHANTI’S WORLD  is stuck in a funding limbo caused by Ruth Harley’s lies.

Now that Ruth will no longer be gracing the industry with her presence (thank God!) and the search is on for a new Chief Executive, I imagine that on the short list (or at least an applicant) is yet another senior Screen Australia executive who has as little interest in facts and truth as Ruth – namely Fiona Cameron. Ruth Harley has been a disaster as Chief Executive but Fiona would be as bad if not worse. If Fiona believes that I have defamed her here, let her sue me. I would be delighted to appear in court with her.

My experience this last year with the Screen Australia Board has left me with no respect – either professionally or personally – for the three of you. How could you do this to a fellow filmmaker? As for the rest of the Board, I have no real expectations of them. They do not know or understand what it is like to be an independent filmmaker – just how hard it is to survive even when and if you have Screen Australia onside. To survive as an independent filmmaker with a ban such as the one you have placed on me is a huge burden. Shame on the three of you.

One day you will all be back in the industry struggling to survive along with the rest of us and will kick and squeal if you one day find yourselves on the receiving end of the punishment you have meted out to me – without even the professional courtesy to provide me with evidence of the crimes you claim I have committed.

best wishes

James Ricketson