Who is responsible for the 2nd rate screenplays developed by Screen Australia?

Most Australian films require the imprimatur of Screen Australia to get made. They require that certain readily identifiable Screen Australia employees, in senior positions, believe that the script is ready to go into production and that the production is worthy of investing large sums of Australian tax-payer money in. These readily identifiable bureaucrats make their decisions in the belief that the films they greenlight will appeal to an audience – whether it be multiplex, arthouse or somewhere in between. When the films turn out to be turkeys these bureaucrats do not feel in any way responsible for their failure and nor are they held to account in any way. Year in, year out they can make what are clearly bad decisions, keep their jobs and become more or less permanent fixtures – moving from one funding body to another, sitting on one panel or another and generally being treated as ‘experts’. 

Given Encore’s moderation policy, these readily identifiable bureaucrats cannot be identified. Why should they be treated with a level of deference not extended to filmmakers?  If a film critic (or Encore blogger) is able to say, in public, “James Ricketson’s film was deservedly voted the third worst at the film festival…etc.” and then go on to explain why is was so bad (“amateurish screenplay that needed a few more drafts”, say) why can’t this same level of criticism be levelled at Screen Australia bureaucrats?

Martha Coleman is Head of Development at Screen Australia. She reads every script proposal that receives Screen Australia development funding. She reads the various drafts that are developed with this funding. At the point where she feels the screenplay isn’t living up to the potential she felt it had at earlier stages in its development she can stop funding it. If she feels that the screenplay is getting better from one draft to the next she can continue to fund it. During this development period she is, to all intents and purposes, the head of a studio. When the producer, director and/or screenwriter feel that they have produced a final draft and that the project is ready to be considered for production funding, Martha is in the position to say, “Yes, I think this is a terrific screenplay ready to go into production,” or “No, sorry, but the screenplay still has flaws in it that need to be addressed before I can recommend it to my production investment colleagues as being ready to going to production.”

In short, Martha Coleman is in a very powerful position when it comes not only to the development of screenplays but to the decision as to whether or not the screenplay is ready to go into production. My own opinion is that most Australian films developed during the past three years were not ready to go into production at the time they were greenlit by Martha and others at Screen Australia. Many were not even close to being ready. Some havebeen so bad from a script point of view (A HEARTBEAT AWAY) that one can only shake ones head in wonder that anyone in the Screen Australia food chain thought that the screenplay would result in a film that audiences would actually want to see.

No doubt Gale Edwards (director) and Julie Kincade (screenwriter) felt as devastated as I did when audiences hated HEARTBEAT as much as they hated my film. HEARTBEAT will be an albatross around both their necks as they try to get another film made. That’s showbiz. However, for Martha Coleman and her script development team (with not one experienced screenwriter amongst them!), plus the Screen Australia Investment Managers who thought there was an audience for HEARTBEAT, the films dismal failure is not an albatross around their necks.  No number of such box office turkeys will threaten their jobs – as would be the case if Screen Australia not only acted like a studio but took responsibility for what the studio produces. If these senior bureaucrats are ever asked, in a public forum, if Screen Australia accepts any responsibility for the poor quality of Australian screenplays, here’s the kind of answer you can expect – this one from Martha Coleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nECoIAVZwV8

Although Martha is captain of the Good Ship ‘Script Development’ in the Screen Australia fleet, it is not her responsibility as Head of Development, if the screenplays she develops are no good! This abrogation of responsibility is symptomatic of the major structural problem that lies at the heart of Screen Australia: No-one is responsible for any of its many failings.

Martha has had ample opportunity to demonstrate that she knows the difference between a good and a bad (or underdeveloped) screenplay. She clearly doesn’t. It is time to give someone else a go. It’s not as if there is a shortage of other filmmakers with similar (or far more) experience than Martha who could step into her shoes! The same applies for the Investment Managers who thought that HEARTBEAT and so many other truly bad Australian films would find an audience. Why not give some other experienced filmmakers a chance to make their mark? And, if they don’t or can’t, give some others a go? New faces, new blood, different ideas and approaches are what is needed in an industry/culture such as the one we all work in. Such an approach would require a CEO at Screen Australia, Admiral of the fleet,  prepared to get rid of the dead wood that (excuse the mixed metaphors here) that clogs the arteries of the organization. But that’s another topic…

Why doesn't Screen Australia engage in online dialogue with filmmakers?

In many Encore online dialogues and debates questions arise that are directed at Screen Australia. Sometimes these questions are quite explicit, sometimes implicit. Either way, these questions are a plea to Screen Australia to engage with the film community. No one from Screen Australia ever responds to these questions or takes part in  dialogue with filmmakers @ Encore online. Until recently I thought that, as public servants, Screen Australia employees must be prohibited from engaging in such dialogue and debate. Then I read the Australian Pubic Service Code of Conduct and discovered that the reverse is the case. From the Code of Conduct:

“Some Australian Public Service employees, as part of their normal duties, provide comment to the media and the public about agency activities. Sometimes they are required to defend agencies against criticism, such as about a lack of probity or competence.”

Criticism of Screen Australia’s lack of competence and probity are rife @ Encore online. Why does Screen Australia never defend itself, answer its critics?

More from the Code of Conduct:

“The term ‘public comment’ is used broadly, and includes comment made…during radio or television interviews, on the Internet (including social websites and blogs), in letters to the press or books or notices, or in other ways where the comment is intended for the community at large. Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. In a professional and respectful manner, APS employees should engage in robust policy conversations.”

Most Encore online ‘policy conversations’ tend to be ‘robust’ and yet Screen Australia refuses to take part in them. Why?

“Equally, as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches. APS employees need to ensure that they fully understand the APS Values and Code of Conduct and how they apply to official or personal communications. If in doubt, they should stop and think about whether to comment and what to say, consult their agency’s policies, seek advice from someone in authority in their agency, or consult the Ethics Advisory Service in the Australian Public Service Commission.”

Perhaps Screen Australia is exempt from the APS Code of Conduct? If not, how about engaging in dialogue and debate online with the film industry, Screen Australia? Q & A, here @ Encore? Please accept this as an open invitation. First question, for the Hon Simon Crean: Is Screen Australia exempt from the APS Code of Conduct? Question for Ruth Harley: Have you instructed Martha Coleman not to engage in dialogue online with the film community? Question for Martha Coleman: Will you, in the interests of transparency and accountability, respond to the various questions that are put to you @Encore online in the future?

                                                                               ***

I sent this article to Mr Crean, Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman with the following note:

“I have written an opinion piece that I hope Encore online may publish. It speaks for itself. If any of you would like to comment on it in its present form, such comment will be incorporated into the body of the piece.” 

I am awaiting responses.

Encore declined to publish this piece.

 

Encore Magazine online censorship

I am new to this blogging business. If this actually appears in cyberspace it will be a miracle. I have no idea what I am doing - just following the prompts.

Only decided to start a blog when Encore magazine censored one of my comments - not just a sentence or two, or a few words, but the whole comment. It was my own contribution to an online debate about the contempt in which screenwriters are held by too many producers and by film funding bodies in particular: http://www.encoremagazine.com.au/if-scripts-could-talk-10881

"The problems Australian film (both culture and industry) confront have been well articulated here @ Encore on many occasions, by many contributors – including the responses to this excellent piece. Solutions to our problems, however, have been thin on the ground. There is one that I suspect most in the industry would agree on if we were capable of speaking with one voice. To quote Doug’s politely put question: “Dr Harley could you please quit now?”

The rumour floating around the industry at the time Harley got the job was that Garrett wanted a non-Australian CEO who would get rid of the dead wood within the AFC and bring to an end the nepotistic networks that were rife at the time. The reverse has occurred. These networks now have virtual tenure and its members will retain their powerful positions for as long as she is CEO. Ruth Harley is, to the film industry, what Jonathan Shier was to the ABC – a disaster. The sooner we have a new CEO at Screen Australia the better.

With a new CEO who believes in transparency and accountability in practice and not merely in theory, a new CEO with no interest in perpetuating nepotistic networks, Australian film could get a new lease of life without there being the need to ‘tear it all down and start again’ – to paraphrase Doug.

A new CEO would assess the track records of those in senior management and senior creative decision-making positions within Screen Australia and simply not renew the contracts of those who have demonstrated year in, year out, their inability to either develop screenplays or invest in films that audiences want to see. If need be a new CEO could encourage some of the dead wood (decades old antiques, in some cases!) to leave Screen Australia with golden handshakes.  This would be much more cost effective than allowing the same clique of failed film Mandarins to continue to waste more tax-payer dollars investing in mediocre films produced from underdeveloped screenplays.  

Getting rid of Ruth Harley necessitates that the industry, speaking with one voice, says to Simon Crean, “Please, Minister, look at the mountain of letters of complaint you have about Ruth Harley, take the film industry’s complaints seriously, take Screen Australia spin with a huge grain of salt and provide the organization with a new CEO as soon as possible.” "