Is the ADG a union with either guts or clout? Has the ADG become irrelevant?

Member of the Australian Directors Guild board

PO Box 211

Rozelle

NSW 2039

Australia

13^th Dec 2016

Dear Samantha Lang, Ray Argall, Nadia Tass, Michela Ledwidge, Jennifer Peedom, Stephen Wallace, Jonathan Brough and Jeffrey Walker

I have received no response to my letters of 21^st Nov.  and  6^th Dec. I think it fairly safe to draw one of the following conclusions:

You don’t want me as a member or the Australian Director’s Guild?

or

If I were to become a member the ADG would not advocate my right to be appraised of the evidence that (a) led to my being banned in May 2012, (b) my being banned in May 2014 and (c) my being banned in May 2016?

It follows that the ADG would likewise not utter a peep of protest if I were to be banned again in May 2018. This is inevitable given that I have no intention of being intimidated into silence by Screen Australia.

Two things have emerged from this ongoing farce:

Screen Australia can act against the interests of Australian film directors and the ADG will remain silent.

Australian film and TV directors would prefer to remain silent about whatever misgivings they have about Screen Australia than to suffer the same fate as myself.

And I think that there is another conclusion that members of the ADG must surely be contemplating:

That the ADG, in its acceptance of funding from Screen Australia, has entered into a tacit agreement not to challenge this film funding body in any meaningful way; not to bite one of  the few hands that feeds it; not to defend ADG members against Screen Australia bullying.

The ADG’s lack of industrial clout is evidenced by your collective refusal to stand up to Screen Australia in relation to its partial funding of the six-part TV series to be made of “Picnic at Hanging Rock.”

After the horse has bolted the ADG is up in arms because half of the series will be directed by a Canadian!

Says Kingston Anderson,  CEO of the ADG:

“Australian directors are amazed and astonished at the choice of a foreign director to work on a classic, especially as it is not a co-production and is being fully financed in Australia.”

Is this the best that the ADG can come up with in Dec 2016? To be “amazed and astonished”.

As you all know I was one of its founders of the ADG (under a different name) more than 30 years ago. The ‘initiating incident’ for its formation in the 1980s was the regular importation of overseas directors to work on productions for which there were eminently qualified Australian directors to work’ productions financed primary with Australian tax dollars through 10BA.

We decided that being “amazed and astonished” was not enough. Action was called for. Directors needed to unite to defend our right to tell Australian stories for Australian and international audiences – unless there was a compelling reason why an overseas director was better suited to a particular project. And so the ADG was formed.

From a recent article in IF magazine:

“Anderson said that this was an ongoing issue, particularly on TVCs, claiming that as many as 20 foreign directors were granted 420 Visas each year without meeting the requirements.”

If this be the case, of what value is the Australian Director’s Guild in its representation of directors if all it can do is be “amazed and astonished”? 

Kingston Anderson again:

“It saddens the ADG to see Screen Australia, Foxtel and Fremantle Media supporting Canadian television directors at the expense of Australians.”

That’s it!? The ADG is ‘saddened’?  The ADG is a union! How about some industrial action?

From the recent IF Magazine article:

“The ADG also announced that it will launch a campaign for better recognition for Australian directors, focused on "rights, respect and remuneration". It argues that directors’ rights have slipped behind those of all other screen industry workers. “

Really! More than 30 years after the problem of overseas director imports was identified, the Australian Director’s guild is now going to launch a campaign!?  Directed at whom? And to what end?

Another question:

Why is Screen Australia, seemingly so concerned about the under-representation  of Australian women directors in film and TV, backing a project in which a Canadian director gets to tell a quintessentially Australian story for a predominantly Australian audience?

Do Graeme Mason and the powers-that-be within Screen Australia (including the SA board, which presumably approves of such imports) believe that there are no directors in Australia (male or female) qualified to work on “Picnic at Hanging Rock?”

Has the ADG asked this question? Has Screen Australia answered it? Are we, in the film and TV community, entitled to know what justification Screen Australia provides for its decision to back a Canadian director at the expense of an Australian one?

The bigger and more significant question that “Picnic” as a TV series raises is this:

“Is there such a dearth of original ideas for films and TV programmes in Australia that we must, as an industry, as a culture, resort to re-makes?”

If the Australian Director’s guild is not to become an irrelevant organisation you, as board members, and Kingston Anderson as CEO, need to develop some spine and be prepared to go into battle with any and everyone (including Screen Australia) who acts in a way that is not in the best interests of film and TV directors. If you do not I suspect ADG membership number will decline and bring about its slow decline and eventual death.

I trust that you will appreciate, in the absence of any support whatsoever from the ADG (or anyone else with the film and TV industry) that my blog is the only ‘weapon’ I have at my disposal to obtain a just resolution to this close-to-five year dispute – other than utilizing the services of the Supreme Court to obtain the evidence of my alleged offenses that should have been provided to me in May 2012.

best wishes

James Ricketson

The ADG's deafening silence

Member of the Australian Directors Guild board

PO Box 211

Rozelle

NSW 2039

Australia

6^th 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 21^st 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