WISH YOU WERE HERE

What a delight to see WISH YOU WERE HERE and to find it very entertaining, suspenseful and accomplished on every level. Congratulations in particular to Kieran Darcy-Smith for his first class screenplay and sure direction and to Joel Edgerton and Felicity Price for their terrific performances. WISH YOU WERE HERE is a film that all involved (including Screen NSW and Screen Australia) should be proud of. A few more films like this and our industry will be in good shape again. If the screenplay was enormously helped by its having been involved in the Aurora initiative I must revisit and review my somewhat jaundiced view of the efficacy of Aurora. WISH YOU WERE HERE is a good film by international standards and deserves to reach a large Australian audience. I hope that it survives in the cinemas long enough for word of mouth to spread. Again, congratulations to all involved.

An intimidating email?

With arrival of the mail each day I expect either a letter of apology from Ruth Harley or a letter from Screen Australia’s legal department. Three weeks after Ruth announced that I had been banned from having any contact with Screen Australia, I have received neither.

I have re-read all of my correspondence with Screen Australia in relation to CHANTI’S WORLD looking for clues of intimidation, harassment or placing staff at risk. The following email, sent on 4^th Oct 2011 is as close as I have ever come, in my view, to being guilty of the crime for which I have been charged. It was written 11 months after I had started inviting Liz (the recipient of the email) and others at Screen Australia present during two conversations regarding the project (the only two) to refute my version of events. Liz and the others could have done so easily. It would have been my word against theirs and I would not blame anyone for believing three Screen Australia employees rather than one filmmaker. However, neither Liz nor the others in a position to do so has ever said to me, “James, recollection of what was said at the meetings is quite different to the one you have presented.” The response to my questions, for close to 18 months ago, has been total silence – up until three weeks ago when Ruth Harley chose to refer to my continued asking of pertinent questions as harassment, intimidation and placing her staff at risk.

Liz

My latest letter to Ruth Harley (copied to you whilst you were away and, it seems, deleted automatically) speaks for itself.

That a version of the truth has gone on record that you know to be untrue and that you know to be damaging to my reputation within Screen Australia does not reflect well on your character, your integrity, your honesty. How could you behave in this manner, Liz? If you have such total disregard for my reputation why not go the final step and put in writing that you did not hear Ross and Claire admit to not viewing my promo.  As you know, this is where this dispute begins. Your silence on this has resulted in me being presented as a liar anyway as far as the Screen Australia records go. Why not end your silence and place it on record?

Perhaps because this would be a lie and you do not want to lie? If so, your silence on this is just as bad as a lie – sins of omission being, in this instance, the same as sins of commission. It has made it possible for Fiona to lie with impunity – her assertion that there is correspondence from me on file suggesting a quite different (and corrupt) reason for my complaints that is only credible if the fact that Ross and Claire did not view my promo is conveniently forgotten.

Fiona operates on the presumption that I now have no avenues through which I can get this matter dealt with impartially and on the basis of facts as opposed to lies and silence. Ruth seems to be of the same opinion. We shall see!

best wishes

To cast aspersions on Liz’s character, integrity and honesty is not a nice thing to do and it was not done lightly, but this is precisely what has happened to me. My own character, integrity and honesty have been impugned by Fiona Cameron’s reference to correspondence from me that does not exist and, 17 months later by Ruth Harley’s reference to correspondence that does not, I contend, bear witness to my having intimidated, harassed or placed anyone at risk. Liz is the only member of Screen Australia staff I have written to regarding this dispute who is not a member of senior management.

Fiona Cameron’s and Ruth Harley’s lies in relation to emails and letters I have written amounts to character assassination of the kind that results in filmmakers (in this instance) being marginalized and discriminated against. It is an abuse of power. And it is this abuse of power and the impossibility of a filmmaker seeking redress at any level within Screen Australia (or within the ministry for the Arts or, it seems, the office of the Ombudsman) that should, I believe, be of concern to everyone in the industry.

Even now, even after 17 months of my asking, Liz could bring at least one thread of this drama to an end by stating, simply, “James, my recollection of what took place in the two meetings I was either present for or present for part of, is quite different to your own.”

Why has no-one within Screen Australia, within the office of the Ministry for the Arts or within the office of the Ombudsman asked Liz this question and cleared up at least this one vital point?

I am well aware, of course, of what a fool and a liar I will appear to be if the Fiona Cameron and Ruth Harley produce the relevant correspondence from me they claim is on file at Screen Australia.

letter to Ruth Harley 30th May

Ruth Harley

CEO, Screen Australia

Level 4

150 William St.

Woolloomooloo 2011                                                                                    30^th May 2012

Dear Ruth

I have received no response from you at all to my letter of 14^th May. This is unsurprising given what you wrote in your letter of 10^th May:

“To be clear, any correspondence which you send to us about the decisions notified in this letter will not be read.”

How wonderfully simple and less time-consuming our legal system and conflict resolution processes would be if the Ruth Harley Star Chamber approach were to be adopted! There would be no need for evidence, no concept of the presumption of innocence, no right of the accused to present his or her case and no right of appeal. Indeed, no opportunity for the accused to engage in any kind of dialogue with the accuser. The guilty party (guilty because s/he has been charged with a crime by a person in a position of power and therefore must be guilty) can pursue only three options: (1) accept the judgment of the Star Chamber unquestioningly, regardless of the injustice that has been done; (2) refuse to accept the punishment meted out and fight for your right not to be subject to the autocratic whims of the Ruth Harleys and Fiona Camerons of the world. Option (2) leaves the complainant open to the accusation of harassment and intimidation if s/he fights for a just resolution based on facts and not spin by repeatedly asking for evidence of the crime s/he has been accused of. This is what I have done. For close to 18 months now.

The remaining option is: (3) appeal to someone further up the bureaucratic ladder to insist that decisions as draconian as banning a filmmaker be backed up with evidence. My attempts to get the Screen Australia Board to play such a role have got me nowhere. My attempts to get Simon Crean to get someone in his office to ask for the evidence have resulted only in one letter from a spin doctor and the office of the Ombudsman seems to accept that the correspondence you and Fiona claim to exist must exist simply because you say it does. Curiouser and curiouser!

Of course Star Chambers don’t choose their victims arbitrarily. They choose them for a reason, though rarely for the reason presented by the Star Chamber. My own problems with Screen Australia began, as you know, back in the early days of its existence when Martha Coleman declared that since I was not a ‘proven producer’ it was not possible for me to make script development applications to Screen Australia for certain projects  -  including those in which I was to play the role of ‘mentor producer’ to some young filmmakers. Having been producing films (drama and documentaries) for close to 40 years I thought Martha’s reason for refusing to even read applications from me was silly and appealed to you to apply some common sense to the situation. I was, as I explained to you, quite experienced in my craft. I had studied drama for five years at university, giving up a masters degree in drama to go a film school in Australia for a year and then to New York University to do post graduate work. I had spent 10 years, on and off, doing assessments for the Australian Film Commission and had been recommended by the AFC, more than once, to act as a mentor to young filmmakers.  And I had won an AFI screenwriting award, along with various other awards over the years. And yet, in the new look Screen Australia, I was not qualified to mentor young filmmakers!

You ignored my correspondence and, when I persisted, handed the matter on to Fiona Cameron to deal with. Fiona made it abundantly clear that what was important was not my experience but the fact that I could not, despite my experience, place a tick in the ‘proven producer’ box. “But I was the producer of BLACKFELLAS during the entire three year period of its development,” I told her, “and during the initial stages of raising money to make the film.” This cut no ice with Fiona because my name does not appear in the credits as a producer. In accordance with Screen Australia guidelines I was not ‘proven’ and, as such, could not mentor young filmmakers in a producing role. If I had been a facilities owner who had contributed equipment and/or facilities to a feature film production in return for a producer’s credit, however, I would be  qualified to act as a mentor to young filmmakers – even if I had never written a screenplay, produced or directed a film or worked in any capacity on an actual film.

Fiona’s position was nonsensical and, as you know, I fought hard to have her decision overturned.  Given that you, Martha and Fiona all refused to meet with me in person I had no option but to advocate on my own behalf through letters and emails. In not one of these have I ever used abusive language. In not one of them have I ever sought to intimidate or harass any member of your staff – unless, of course, asking the same question many times (having received no answers) constitutes harassment. As for placing your staff at risk, this is just nonsense Ruth and you know it. And so would anyone who looked at my correspondence. It is a mystery to me why you would make such a statement. Perhaps you hoped, with your fatwa, that I would toe the line and stop asking questions in public. Perhaps, by implying that you might call off your fatwa, you were hoping that I might realize that my best interests would be served in ceasing to be a public critic of Screen Australia. Or, to be more precise, being a critic of the autocratic way in which you and Fiona run Screen Australia – the primary focus of Fiona’s attention being on the correct filling out of forms and not on the quality of the ideas or screenplays that the forms accompany in the making of an application. I should qualify this. The strict adherence to the filling out of forms, to the placing of ticks in the right boxes, applies only when senior management at Screen Australia chooses to apply it. The strict adherence to guidelines becomes much less strict, however (and is often abandoned completely) when it suits members of senior management at Screen Australia. The playing field is not level and anyone who complains about this will have their complaint dealt with by someone (Fiona) who has demonstrated her lack of commitment to the playing field remaining level.

You complain of the reputational damage I have inflicted on members of Screen Australia staff (and the organization itself) but seem oblivious to the damage inflicted on my own reputation as a result of the lies that you and Fiona have placed on file. If you can’t produce the correspondence that you claim bears witness to the crimes you accuse me of, Ruth, you have effectively defamed me and you should resign. The same goes for Fiona and the correspondence she claims I have placed on file but which, as you have known for 17 months, does not exist.

Again, given that you have no interest in conciliation, I suggest that you either sue me or apologize. Alternatively, produce the correspondence and it will be me who has to apologize.

best wishes

James Ricketson

letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard 29th May

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Prime Minister

Parliament House

Canberra, ACT 2600                                                                                                           29^th May  2012

                                                                                   

Dear Prime Minister

“Your correspondence places our staff at risk,” writes a bureaucrat in the employ of the government you lead. “To be clear, any correspondence you send to us about the decisions notified in this letter will not be read.” At risk of what, I wonder! Death by letter bomb? Poisoning by anthrax? I know that the pen is mightier than the sword and all that, but…placing the staff of Screen Australia (a tax-payer funded film funding body) at risk with my words! Is that an insult or a compliment?

“Screen Australia has taken the decision that it will not accept further funding applications from you, or engage in correspondence with you about funding applications,” continues Ruth Harley, Chief Executive of Screen Australia. “I appreciate that this is an unusual step and one which we do not take lightly.”

I search Harley’s letter in vain for evidence that my letters and emails have placed her staff at risk, “We are under a legal obligation to protect our staff from harassment and intimidation,” is as close as Harley comes to explaining her decision. I agree with Harley that if I am guilty of harassment, intimidation and placing her staff at risk, her banning me from having any further communication with the tax-payer funded organization she heads up is not an inappropriate course of action. Indeed, given the unpleasant images conjured up by placing her staff ‘at risk’,  it would not be unreasonable for her to take out an AVO against me. Some evidence in support of the charges laid against me would be appreciated, however, given the draconian nature of the sentence handed down by Harley. With or without the blessing of the Screen Australia Board is a question that I have been unable to get an answer to.

Whoever in your office is reading this may well be thinking at this point: “The Chief Executive of Screen Australia, answerable to Minister for the Arts, the Hon Simon Crean, would not accuse a filmmaker of harassment, intimidation and placing her staff at risk if she did not have evidence that he had done so. Ricketson must be guilty, surely!”  Yes, I may be guilty as charged. It may well be that I am lying when I insist that I have not intimidated, harassed or placed any Screen Australia staff at risk. Evidence of my guilt or innocence would be found in the correspondence in question if anyone bothered to look. Or is Harley’s word of its existence enough?

I have asked Ruth Harley to quote one sentence, one paragraph, one email, one letter to a member of her staff that contains anything that could be construed, by even the most sensitive or Screen Australia employee, as posing a risk to them. If she can produce even just a few words that are evidence of my having harassed or intimidated her staff,  my pleading innocent is disingenuous at the very least. If Harley were to identify the correspondence to back up her claims, or even selected extracts, I would have lots of egg on my face. I would appear a fool in public, and deservedly so since I have so vociferously, and very publicly, proclaimed my innocence?  Harley refuses to reveal to me which of my correspondence she is referring to.  

My appeal to Harley to act n accordance with the precepts of accountability and transparency Screen Australia prides itself in adhering to having failed, I then suggested that an independent Conciliator be brought in to determine whether or not my correspondence contains evidence of the crimes for which I have been accused. Such a Conciliator should, I believe, be someone with no vested interest in the outcome but an interest only in verifiable facts and not in the clouds of obfuscation that tax-payer funded spin doctors can throw up to confuse simple questions. It does not get much more simple that this: the correspondence to which Harley refers either exists or it does not. And if it exists there must be a few words in it at least that could be construed as intimidating, harassing, placing staff at risk. Harley could point these out to the Conciliator.

Harley did not respond to my Conciliation suggestion. This is consistent with her declaration that “any correspondence you send to us about the decisions notified in this letter will not be read.” Kafkaesque is too mild a term to describe what is going on here!

I believe it should be a matter of concern to you, at a time when bureaucrats in your government endlessly repeat the  ‘I am committed to transparency and accountability’ mantra, that a senior bureaucrat can effectively ban an individual from communicating with a tax-payer funded organization and provide no evidence at all to back up his or her actions! It should be a matter of concern to you that the minister whose job it is to see that public servants act in accordance with the Australian Public Service code of conduct refuses to ask the Chief Executive of an organization within his portfolio to provide evidence for such a draconian course of action. Or am I just hopelessly old fashioned in my understanding of what the words ‘transparency’; and ‘accountability’ actually mean?

It is now three months since I wrote the following to you:

“It is more than a little absurd that it should be necessary to write to the Prime Minister of Australia to ask a simple question for which there is a not only a simple answer but an obvious one:

Is it appropriate that complaints made about the Chief Operating Officer of a federal government body that invests around $60 million a year in Australian film and television are investigated by the Chief Operating Officer herself?”

Receipt of this letter has not been acknowledged and it has certainly not been handed down the line to Mr Crean’s office for him to deal with. I have written many times to Mr Crean about this. Receipt of  my letters has not been acknowledged. Perhaps Crean is fearful that my correspondence places his staff at risk!  

yours sincerely

James Ricketson

Forums, debate and dialogue

“Work on a screenplay often operates in a series of waves. The first waves are exploratory. We open all the doors and we begin to seek, neglecting no path, no blind alley. The imagination launches unbridled into a hunt which can lead it into the vulgar, the absurd, the grotesque, which can even make the imagination forget the theme that is the object of the hunt. Whereupon another wave rears, surging in the opposite direction. This is the backwash, the withdrawal to what is reasonable, essential, to the old question: exactly why are we making this and not some other film?

Jean Claude Carriere

“Why are we making this and not some other film?” A simple question that has a multitude of equally valid answers; a question that lies at the heart of the much bigger question:

“Why should the Australian tax-payer support Australian film (culture and industry) at all?”

Again, a question with multiple valid answers but is it a question that we filmmakers discuss as often and as effectively as we could? Or as we should?

In his response to my blog entry of a couple of days ago ‘Doug’ lamented the lack of opportunities for filmmakers to meet, discuss, argue, debate, swap ideas and so on:

“I think one of the worst things about our cottage industry is the stifling of debate. Creative industries thrive on discussion, the brick wall we are given by most funding agencies with regard to the scrutinising of investment decisions and funding policy just fans the flames of mistrust. I do on the other hand think the funding bodies are listening to the industry, but they could bypass so much misunderstanding and conspiracy by simply holding more forums for discussion and debate or setting up a digital platform whereby debate can flourish.”

I agree with ‘Doug’ wholeheartedly and wish that some body (the ADG or the Writer’s Guild, for instance) would organize such forums on a regular basis – allowing filmmakers to mix as professional colleagues and as friends (or potential friends) all engaged in similar pursuits. My own attempt to organize such a forum last year foundered when Screen Australia refused to be involved. I feel now that such forums would be of value even if Screen Australia refuses to take part in them.

Given the amount of attention paid to the craft of screenwriting by funding bodies and the lack, still, of very many high quality Australian screenplays, the art and craft of screenwriting would seem to me to be a good place to start. A debate with two teams – three on each team, along with a good strong moderator:

“The importation from overseas of script ‘experts’ and ‘gurus’ to conduct workshops has improved the quality of Australian screenplays.”

One team speaks in defence of and the other against the proposition. Each team member gets 6 or 7 minutes to speak then the debate is open to the floor – questions and observations kept brief by a moderator not prepared to put up with off-topic and rambling diatribes from frustrated filmmakers taking the debate as an opportunity to whinge. The popularity of the ABC’s Q&A and the Sydney Morning Herald IQ debates reveal a desire on the part of a sizeable section of the Australian public for civilized dialogue about contentious issues of concern to all involved. It is wonderful to see those in these debates, though they be on different sides of the political or ideological divide, treating each other with both respect and, often, with humour and affection. It would be great to see this occur within the film community.

After ninety minutes or so of formal debate and discussion, all present mingle and, beers or glasses of wine in hand, continue to debate, discuss and meet fellow film practitioners whose names might be familiar but when they have never met. If the funding bodies get involved (as I suspect they would if they felt they were not going to be under attack) this would also provide an opportunity for film bureaucrats and filmmakers to meet each other in a social context that could help break down the barriers that Doug refers to.

Is THE GREAT GATSBY an Australian film?

Baz Luhrman’s GREAT GATSY is in the news again, as it will be on and off for months to come. The questions remain:

"What will Australian taxpayers get for their $40 million contribution to the coffers of Warner Brothers - an American producer of film and television entertainment whose primary market is the United States?"

"What will NSW taxpayers get for their $10 million contribution to Gatsby’s budget – or whatever the amount might be?" (The size of the investment is a secret which, in itself, should be a scandal. How can the state government essentially give away up to $10 million and reveal no details!?)

That a substantial part of Gatsby’s $120 million budget was spent in Australia was good news in the short term for the film technicians who worked on it and for the providers of other services required in its production - but was it good news, in the long term, for the Australian film industry? Short term gains versus long term viability?

Why is it important that we have an Australian film industry?  Would it really matter if the federal and state governments stopped subsidising it and allowed it to die a natural death as other inefficient industries are? (The Chinese could, after all, make Australian films for a fraction of the cost!) Or if, for whatever reason, we feel that an Australian film industry is in some way important to our culture, are there ways in which $50 million of taxpayers’ money (or whatever the secret sum is) might be better spent?

The word ‘industry’ is problematic - conjuring up, as it does, a product for which there are identifiable consumers and from which a profit is expected to accrue. Virtually no Australian films make a return on the investment in them (the Australian taxpayer being a major investor) and to pretend that they ever will is to delude ourselves and lead to the wrong questions being asked.

Imagine if we referred to ‘the Australian ballet industry’, ‘the Australian Opera industry’, the ‘Sydney Symphony Orchestra industry’, ‘the poetry industry’ and so on. As industries they are all abject failures so why do we bother to subsidise them? And why, leaving the arts aside for a moment, do we as a nation massively subsidize athletes who will compete in the Olympics in a few months? If we were to think in terms of the ‘athletics industry’, conversation about the role that these athletes will play in our national life becomes skewed in a way that most would find laughable. And yet we cling to the word ‘industry’ doggedly.

Drop ‘industry’ and think only in terms of ‘Australian film’ and the questions become both more interesting and more pertinent. Baz Luhrman’s GATSBYA may well be a box office hit. It might be a masterpiece. It will not, however, be an Australian story told for Australian audiences and reflecting aspects of our own culture for the benefit of present or future generations of Australians. It will an American story with zero relevance to Australia above and beyond the relevance that all great cinema (all great art) has for mankind in general.

So, how might Gatsby’s $50 million of Australian and NSW taxpayers’ money be better spent to nurture the production of Australian films that speak to and of being Australian? In this new digital era in which it is possible to produce feature films for comparatively low budgets and to distribute and broadcast these on a variety of different platforms. As PARANORMAL ACTIVITY revealed a few years ago (budget $11,000, worldwide box office in excess of $100 million) if a story captures the imagination of the audience, it matters little whether it is shot on widescreen 70 mm or with a mobile phone.

But that’s just a one-off, like the Blair Witch Project, it might be argued. Fair enough. How about The Kids are Alright - budget $4 million, worldwide box office $30 million. Yes, the film was undoubtedly helped at the box office by the presence of film stars (Annette Benning, Julianne Moore and Mia Wasikowska) but why did they choose to work on the film for a fraction of their usual fee? Because it was a terrific screenplay. Could we make 10 Australian films of the calibre of The Kids are Alright (with or without stars) for the cost, to the tax-payers of one Great Gatsby? Yes, if there were 10 screenplays as good (why there are not is an important question but space does not allow it to be gone into here).

Regardless of the precise amount of money invested by Australian tax-payers in GATSBY the question remains: Might this sort of money be better spent in terms of fostering both the industry and culture of Australian film? This is a debate which it seems to me should be in the forefront of our thinking all of the time – even if it turns out that GATSBY is a huge hit and that Australian tax-payers get a financial return on their investment.

Looking backwards is usually problematic but at times it is worth considering where we have come from and why we have been on this journey at all. Harking back to the days when political parties on both sides of the political divide felt that Australian film was important provides us with a context within questions about Australian film (both the industry and culture) can, and I believe should, be asked today.

As far back as 1963 the Senate Select Committee Report on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for television felt that there was “a responsibility to protect an industry with a strong cultural element”. In the late 60s and early 70s the various bodies involved in providing the industry with a philosophical base stressed that:

 “(T)he 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”.

The Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission declared that:

“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.”

I believe that these inspirational words are worth bearing in mind today as we debate the pros and cons of investing 10s of millions of tax-payer dollars in films that are not in any way Australian – as is the case with GATSBY.

letter to Ombudsman 25th May

Ms Alison Larkins

Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman

GPO Box 442, Canberra                                                                                    25^th  May 2012

Dear Ms Larkins

                                                            re 2010-118398

If I were obliged to reduce my request for assistance from the office of the Ombudsman to one simple question it would be: Please ask Ruth Harley to quote one sentence, one paragraph, one email, one letter to a member of her staff that contains anything that could be construed, by even the most sensitive or Screen Australia employee, as posing a risk to them.

If Harley can produce just one sentence, one phrase, a few words that are evidence of my having harassed or intimidated her staff or placed them at risk,  both my case and my credibility are greatly weakened. I have lied. I am a liar.

I imagine, from time to time, that the office of the Ombudsman reviews its modus operandi. I would like to suggest that a ‘fast lane’ be implemented (as in supermarkets)  for people such as myself who really only require someone in the relevant position of authority (the office of the Ombudsman, for instance) to ask a simple question: “Ms Harley, could you please identify the dates on which Mr Ricketson communicated with Screen Australia by either email or in a letter in the manner you refer to in your letter of 10^th May banning him from having any contact with Screen Australia?”

If Harley produces the correspondence no further investigation is required by your office, thus saving precious time that could be better spent on more weighty matters.

The same could have applied 17 months ago when Elisa Harris failed to ask of Fiona Cameron the one question that could have resolved this matter in half an hour: “Please, Ms Cameron, could you provide me with the dates and modes of transmission of the correspondence you refer to in your letter of 12^th Nov 2010?”

Please, Ms Larkins, get someone to call Ruth Harley and ask her the one question mentioned above. If Harley cannot produce the correspondence, my complaint is clearly worthy of having more questions asked in relation to it.

best wishes

James Ricketson