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.
Bee Miles: "It takes a man or a woman of great moral courage - a man or a woman almost unique - to dare to take the risk of being himself or herself all the time, never posing, acting or affecting. It is a dangerous business being yourself. I know of nothing more certain to provoke the almost always false epithet 'mad' or to deprive that man or woman of his or her liberty."
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
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 4th 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.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
letter to Ruth Harley 30th May
Ruth Harley
CEO, Screen Australia
Level 4
150 William St.
Woolloomooloo 2011 30th
May 2012
Dear Ruth
I have received no response from you at all to my
letter of 14th May. This is unsurprising given what you wrote in
your letter of 10th 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
Monday, May 28, 2012
letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard 29th May
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament
House
Canberra, ACT
2600 29th
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
Sunday, May 27, 2012
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.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
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:
The Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission declared that:
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.
"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.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
letter to Ombudsman 25th May
Ms Alison Larkins
Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman
GPO Box
442, Canberra 25th
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 10th 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 12th 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
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Conciliation....Mediation
Last week I suggested in ‘A simple solution’ an
equitable way not only to resolve my own dispute with Screen Australia but a
way that other filmmakers who find themselves at loggerheads with the
organization could resolve their disputes.
My suggestion has been ignored by Screen Australia.
The front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald carries a story entitled DOUBLE
MEDIATION ORDERED FOR DIVORCE. “Divorcing
couples will be asked to undergo further mediation before having their case
heard in court,” the article begins. Having been recently divorced by
Screen Australia on the flimsiest of pretexts, this seems like a good idea to
me. Okay, so the marriage between James Ricketson and Screen Australia has not been
a particularly happy one but I feel as though I have been divorced on the
grounds of infidelity without my partner providing any evidence at all that I
have been unfaithful! “The move, for
cases not resolved at earlier, compulsory conciliation, is to be trialled for
about 110 couples…” Compulsory conciliation! Where do I sign up? This seems
like an excellent idea to me – especially when the stakes are as high as they
are in this case. “Parties would be
‘invited to participate’ but if they do not, they would have to explain in
court why mediation was not appropriate.” Could Glen Boreham or Simon Crean
please invite Screen Australia to participate in a mediation process or explain
why it is not appropriate? The story goes on, “The Family Court Justice Garry Watts said: ‘The courts want to explore
all avenues of possible resolution, particularly without the emotional strain
and costs associated with having a fully defended trial.” Any lessening of
the emotional strain – for both Screen Australia staff and myself – would, I am
sure, be welcome by all involved.
The final paragraph reads, “The
point of mediation is that both parties want to reach an agreement and that
they enter into mediation voluntarily and with that goal in mind.”
Please Ruth, Fiona, agree to take part in a
conciliation/mediation process overseen by someone who has no vested interest
in the outcome but who is interested in the known facts only.
Ruth Harley, please either sue me or apologize
It is a source of constant amazement to me that Glen
Boreham and the Screen Australia Board have not said to Fiona Cameron and Ruth
Harley:
“Either produce the correspondence you claim he has written and make Ricketson
look like a liar and a fool in public and sue him for defamation or admit now
that the correspondence does not exist and apologize to him for giving him the
runaround this past 17 months.”
The problem with the latter course of action, of
course, is that is raises the question:
“Why on earth has the Screen Australia Board, in full possession of the
facts for 17 months, allowed the absurd situation to arise in which a filmmaker
is banned from even talking to anyone at Screen Australia on what are clearly
trumped up charges?”
A last minute apology would leave the Board of Screen
Australia, along with Harley and Cameron with a lot of egg on their faces. The
former course of action, suing me, is fraught with difficulties also. Screen
Australia would be obliged, in any court action, to produce the correspondence
it claims “places our staff at risk” and which amounts to “harassment and intimidation”. The Screen Australia Board knows
that such correspondence does not exist and whilst it is able to hide its
complicity in my banning by remaining silent, silence will not be an option available
to it in a court of law, tribunal or board that might hear the matter.
Ruth Harley claims that my “public statements in relation to our staff have also caused distress,
and appear to be calculated to damage the reputation of individuals and this
organization.” This is worth a closer look. The reputation of an individual
or an organization (myself and Screen Australia in this case) is the byproduct
of their actions, not of their words. If I have harassed, intimidated or placed
Screen Australia staff at risk it is only right and proper that my reputation
should suffer as a result if the relevant correspondence sees the light of day.
Having consistently denied having harassed, intimidated or placed anyone at
risk, such correspondence would
leave me open to the valid accusation that I have played fast and loose
with the truth. Or, to use the terminology I prefer, that I am a liar.
Let’s just
say, for arguments sake, that the correspondence, when released (as it will be
one day) reveals that I am a liar. Public statements about me to that effect
will be made and these will cause me a great deal of distress. However, it will
by my own actions, my own lies, that have brought this distress upon myself and
I should expect no sympathy from anyone. Likewise, if I cause Harley and
Cameron distress by calling them liars and it is demonstrated that the
correspondence they refer to does not exist (ie, they lied), they will have
brought the distress upon themselves and should expect no sympathy.
It is
worth adding here that the only recipients of letters or emails from me who
might have been ‘distressed’ by their contents are members of senior management
at Screen Australia – Ross Mathews, Fiona Cameron and Ruth Harley. There is
only one member of Screen Australia staff to whom I have written emails that
might have caused distress who is not a member of senior management. Here is
the first email, name redacted for the time being, written three months into
this dispute – to someone who was (and remains) in a position to either confirm
or deny my version of what occurred in and around the time of my first
application for development funds for CHANTI’S WORLD.
This was written on 24th Feb 2011
“Dear XXX
It is a great shame that I should ever have been put
in the position of having to ask you to verify my account of what occurred with
CHANTI'S WORLD. Or not verify it, as the case may be. It is a great shame
that Ross (Mathews) and Julia (Overton), through their silence, left me with no
option but to ask you. However, given that I did ask and given that you have
been all along in a position to refute or verify my account, it is
disappointing that you have kept your silence. Perhaps you have been told to by
Fiona (Cameron). Perhaps you will be obliged to forward this email on to her -
the black hole within Screen Australia into which difficult questions
disappear.
I am copying this to Rachel Perkins in the hope that either she may call you and ask a few pertinent questions or that you may call her and volunteer the information.
Perhaps Screen Australia hopes, if it ignores my questions for long enough, at every level up to the Board, that the problem my questions speak to will magically disappear. And perhaps it will, but the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet!”
I am copying this to Rachel Perkins in the hope that either she may call you and ask a few pertinent questions or that you may call her and volunteer the information.
Perhaps Screen Australia hopes, if it ignores my questions for long enough, at every level up to the Board, that the problem my questions speak to will magically disappear. And perhaps it will, but the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet!”
I waited 8 months before writing a follow-up email to
this Screen Australia employee. In the absence of a resolution by the end of
the week (an apology and a retraction of false allegations), I will publish it next
Monday. It is not something that I want to do (it will cause distress) but I
have very few weapons with which to fight this battle at present other than
this blog – especially now that Encore has effectively banned any further
online discussion about it. Perhaps, if I continue with my blog long enough it
will eventually dawn on someone (Screen Australia Board, Simon Crean, the
Ombudsman) to ask Harley and Cameron to produce the correspondence that will
confirm that I have been lying all along about its non-existence. Or, alternatively,
that Harley and Cameron have been lying about its existence.
A few words are in order about Encore, whose editor
(Tim Burrows) has decided to terminate the thread of comments following the
article published a couple of weeks ago. A couple of points. When the article
appeared it contained one error that I asked, by way of a comment, to be
corrected. It was:
To set the record straight,
ENCORE, I have NEVER complained about my documentary project not receiving
funding. I did, however, complain that in the process of assessing a
development application 2 years ago, Screen Australia (by its own admission)
failed to view the ‘promo’ that contained, in 8 minutes, 15 years in the life
of the central character in the documentary…etc.”
The
comment was not published. In an email to Tim Burrows I asked him to correct
the error:
“It is four
days now since I pointed out to you and Colin that my complaint about Screen
Australia was NOT that it had refused to fund my documentary. I have never made
such a complaint about this or any other project of mine every in 40 years of
filmmaking. This was an understandable mistake but one that should have been
corrected by allowing my comment to be published. Screen Australia's most
common response to any critic is that he or she is embittered by rejection and
not publishing a correction in this case feeds right into Screen Australia's
modus operandi.
Even at this late date I would appreciate that my comment be published or that there be some acknowledgment that my complaint is not about not receiving funding but about the shoddy assessment I received - one which did not include the assessor (or anyone else in the Screen Australia documentary section) actually viewing the promo that was the centrepiece of my application.”
Even at this late date I would appreciate that my comment be published or that there be some acknowledgment that my complaint is not about not receiving funding but about the shoddy assessment I received - one which did not include the assessor (or anyone else in the Screen Australia documentary section) actually viewing the promo that was the centrepiece of my application.”
Tim did not respond to this request for a correction.
My complaint to Screen Australia vis a vis CHANTI’S
WORLD had to do with due process. All that I ever asked for was an apology from
Ross Mathews and Claire Jager for having assessed my project without viewing my
‘promo’ and an apology from Fiona Cameron for placing (and allowing to remain)
on file a statement that she knew to be untrue vis a vis correspondence.
I have never been able to figure out the reason why
Encore censors some comments and not others. The following, written yesterday in
response to ‘Trevor’ was censored:
“Yes, Trevor, lots and lots
of egg if the correspondence is released and it becomes clear that I have been
playing fast and loose with the truth all along!
As for the Craig Thompson
comparison, at least we know from evidence made public just what it is that he
has been accused of. That I have placed Screen Australia staff at risk is a
very vague charge and one that conjures up all sorts of unpleasant images. Such
a serious charge requires, at the very least, some evidence in support of it. I
have been asking for close to two weeks now for evidence that I have written
the correspondence Harley refers to. To date my requests have fallen on deaf
ears.”
I am not a lawyer but, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how this comment can be considered either libellous or defamatory! If it is, or if Screen Australia could run a case based on the premise that it was (and so intimidate Encore into practicing an extreme form of self-censorship), I fear for the quality of debate we will be able to have either in Encore or any other forum in which filmmakers toss around ideas or air their complaints.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Ruth Harley's dilemma
Ruth Harley is confronted with a dilemma. If she sues
me for defamation, as she has hinted Screen Australia might, she will have to identify
the correspondence which, she claims, contains evidence that I have placed
Screen Australia staff at risk. If the correspondence does not support Ruth’s
claims it is she who will have a lot of egg on her face. The same applies to
any form of conciliation or mediation that might occur and which I have
suggested. This would also necessitate that an independent arbiter scrutinize
the correspondence looking for evidence of harassment, intimidation and placing
Screen Australia staff at risk. If no such evidence can be found, the
conciliation route also has the potential to result in a lot of egg on Ruth’s
face. More importantly, a lack of evidence in support of Ruth’s claims would
raise the question: How is it that a filmmaker can be banned on the basis of
correspondence that does not exist? Or, to put it another way: How is it that a
filmmaker can be banned on the basis of correspondence that does not contain evidence
of harassment, intimidation and placing Screen Australia staff at risk?
I had hoped that lodging a complaint with the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal would at least force Ruth to identify the
offending correspondence but to lodge a complaint would cost me in excess of
$700 – money that I do not have.
Something else that would emerge from an independent
enquiry would be that there is only one member of Screen Australia staff to
whom I have sent emails who is not a member of senior management or Chair of
the Screen Australia Board. With this one exception, all of my correspondence has
been directed at Ross Mathews, Fiona Cameron, Ruth Harley and Glen Boreham. I
have copied this correspondence to others in the documentary section of Screen
Australia who have an interest in my dispute or who have played some small part
in it. I could, if need be, publish my emails to the one staff member who is
not a member of senior management but am loathe to do so – not because they
contain evidence of the crimes for which I have been accused but because the
publication of them would cause unnecessary hurt to someone who is actually an
innocent bystander.
Excuse me for belabouring the point but in none of my
letters or emails have I ever used abusive language or made threats of any
kind. All that I have done is ask questions and requested that I be provided
with answers based on facts and not spin. This will become apparent in the fullness
of time one way or another.
Monday, May 21, 2012
letter to Glen Boreham, Chair, Screen Australia Board 22nd May 2012
Glen Boreham
Chair, Screen Australia Board
Level 4, 150 William St.
Woolloomooloo 2011 22nd
May 2102
Dear Glen
Your lack of a response to letters from me (the last
being 19th March, published online at http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/letter-to-glen-boreham-chair-of-screen.html)
suggests that you have no doubts about the veracity of Ruth Harley’s claim that
I am guilty of harassing, intimidating and placing at risk Screen Australia
staff. Did Ruth Harley consult with yourself and the Board before taking the
unprecedented step of banning a filmmaker from not only making applications but
of speaking with anyone at Screen Australia? If the Screen Australia Board was
consulted, did any member of it ask to see the correspondence Ruth Harley
refers to in support of her ban? Or was the Screen Australia Board prepared to
take Harley at her word? After all, why would the Chief Executive of Screen
Australia make a claim about the existence of intimidating or harassing
correspondence if it did not exist? To even ask Ruth to produce the
correspondence would be an expression of lack of confidence in her! The same
applies, going back 17 months, to the correspondence Fiona Cameron claimed I
had written in relation to CHANTI’S WORLD. Did anyone on the Screen Australia
Board (well aware as it was of my dispute) ask Fiona to produce the
correspondence? Or was it presumed that Fiona would not make such a statement
if the correspondence did not exist?
This is the presumption made by the office of the Ombudsman which,
likewise, did not bother to ask to see the correspondence. Now, 17 months
later, it looks as though no-one (Screen Australia Board, Office of the
Ombudsman, the Hon Simon Crean) is going to ask Ruth Harley to produce the
correspondence from me that she claims places her staff at risk. This is an
extraordinary state of affairs. Has Screen Australia given up entirely on even
maintaining the illusion of a commitment to the precepts of transparency and
accountability? Add the fact that Fiona Cameron investigates complaints into
her own behaviour (and refuses to communicate with the complainant!) and you
have a perfect recipe for corruption to thrive – all of those who should be
asking questions, demanding accountability, refusing to do so.
If the Screen Australia Board is to maintain any
credibility in the transparency/accountability department could it please ask
Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron to release the correspondence they refer to or
extracts thereof that provide evidence of my harassment, my intimidation, my
placing of members of Screen Australia staff at risk?
I trust that my continuing to write to you, despite
the fact that you never acknowledge receipt of letters, let alone answer
questions, is not seen as evidence of harassment of yourself by myself!
best wishes
James Ricketson
Sunday, May 20, 2012
letter to the Hon Simon Crean 21st May 2012
James
Ricketson
316 Whale
Beach Road
Palm
Beach2108
0400959229
The Hon Simon Crean
Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra
ACT 2601
21st. May 2012
Dear Mr Crean
I have been banned by Ruth Harley, Chief Executive of
Screen Australia, from making any applications for funding of any kind to the
organization. I have been banned from even talking with members of Screen
Australia staff. As far as I know, no other filmmaker in the history of
Australian film has had such a ban placed on them. Ruth Harley has also, in her
letter to me of 10th May, said that she will enter into no
correspondence with me about her reasons for banning me; that any letters I
write to Screen Australia will remain unread. She has also intimated that under
certain circumstances the ban that has been placed on me might be lifted but
has given me no clue as to what these circumstances might be. Given that she
will nor correspond with me, will answer no questions, I have no way of knowing
what I need to do to have the ban lifted. Kafkaesque is too mild an adjective
to use to describe the scenario.
If I am guilty of the crimes Ruth Harley has accused
me of, being banned from having any further dealings with Screen Australia is
not an unreasonable response on her part. Indeed, depending on how serious my
harassment, intimidation and placing of her staff at risk is (these are the
charges against me), taking out an AVO on me would not be unreasonable. But
what if I did not write the correspondence to which Harley refers? What if no
such correspondence exists? What if I have been falsely accused? There is, of
course, a very easy way of finding out. If the correspondence to which Harley
refers exists, it will be on file and I will look very silly indeed, to say the
least, for maintaining (over a period of 17 months in the case of one lot of
correspondence) that it does not exist. On the other hand, if the
correspondence does not exist, it would not be unreasonable to ask Harley if
she is in possession of any other information that has led to her banning me.
Could you please ask Caroline Fulton (Acting
Assistant Secretary, Creative Industries and Sector Development, Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet) to ask Ruth Harley to produce the
correspondence she is referring to. If she cannot or will not produce the
correspondence a whole host of questions arise that I trust someone within your
ministry will ask. If Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron would like to identify on
which dates I wrote the offending correspondence (in either emails or letters)
I will publish it on my blog.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
A simple solution
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in my
dispute with Screen Australia one thing is clear: it has gone on for much too
long and is wasting the time and energy of too many people. There should be
some mechanism whereby a quick and equitable resolution can be reached. It
could have happened 15 months ago. It could happen next week. Here’s how it could
work. A Conciliator is called in who has no connection with Screen Australia or
myself and no vested interest in the outcome – a cross between Judge Judy and a
marriage guidance counsellor. S/he would be interested in verifiable facts
only. Present at the meeting would be myself, Ross Mathews, Liz Crosby Fiona
Cameron and, perhaps, on skype,
Claire Jager in Melbourne.
CONCILIATOR James, you have called Fiona a liar in
public. Why?
JAMES Because Fiona claimed in November 2010 that I
had placed correspondence on file that I claim does not exist.
CONCILIATOR Fiona, does the correspondence exist?
FIONA Yes, I have it with me.
JAMES Why have you waited 17 months…?
CONCILIATOR James, you’ll have an opportunity to have
your say.
CONCILIATOR looks at correspondence.
CONCILIATOR Well, James, it certainly does seem from
your letters and emails that you came away from the meeting with Ross and Julia
in August 2010 in the belief that your project was to receive development
funding and that Fiona was merely stating verifiable facts in her letter of Nov
2010? Do you have anything to say?
JAMES I’d completely forgotten that I wrote that! I’m
sorry, Fiona, I’ve really cocked up badly here. I don’t know what else to say!
This is very embarrassing!
Alternatively
CONCILIATOR Fiona, do you have copies of the
correspondence you claim in your letter of Nov 2010 that James wrote with you?
FIONA No.
CONCILIATOR Does the correspondence exist?
FIONA I have not been able to locate it, but it was
my understanding…
CONCILIATOR But James has been asking you for 17
months to produce the correspondence! Why, when you realized that you could
not, did you not apologize for making an error and correct the files
accordingly? Do you have anything to say to James?
FIONA Yes, I should have done so. I’m sorry James.
JAMES Apology accepted, Fiona.
On the question of whether or not Ross, Julia or
Claire had seen the ‘promo’ for Chanti’s World
CONCILIATOR Ross, Julia, Claire, Liz, you are aware
that James has been claiming for 17 months that you admitted, Ross, that
neither you nor Claire had seen his promo before a decision was made to knock
back his application. Is James’ recollection accurate? In line with your own?
ROSS No, Claire and I both saw James’ promo.
CONCILIATOR So, Liz, when James says that you
overheard Ross admitting he had not seen the promo, is he mistaken?
LIZ I have no recollection of hearing Ross admit to
seeing the promo.
JAMES But,
why Ross, Liz, have I had to wait 17 months for you to answer this question? I
asked it so many times!
CONCILIATOR That’s a good question, James, but not
really relevant to the central question of whether or not Screen Australia is
justified in banning you.
Alternatively
CONCILIATOR Did any of you view James’ promo before a
decision was made regarding his first Chanti’s World application.
ROSS I don’t recall seeing it.
CLAIRE I can’t be sure.
LIZ Ross did admit to not seeing it whilst I was in
the room.
Yes, there are lots of tributaries that could be
explored in this dispute (and bureaucratic clouds of obfuscation that could be
thrown up) but this is the essence of it. I have fought for my right to have
such a conciliation meeting held by an independent arbiter and, yes, I have
written many letters insisting that the matter be cleared up on the basis of
facts and not merely assertions. The correspondence Fiona and Ruth claim to
have on file either exists or it does not.
A meeting along the lines described above could
happen next week. I would suggest that such a conciliation meeting occur as
soon as possible and that all present agree with whatever findings the
Conciliator arrives at and that the matter to be put to rest once and for all.
If I am guilty as charged, Screen Australia’s ban is not an unreasonable one.
If I am not guilty as charged an apology is in order.
As for the question of whether or not Fiona Cameron
investigates complaints about Fiona Cameron (at least in this instance) the
Conciliator needs merely to read, in the Screen Australia file, the
correspondence between myself, Fiona Cameron, Ruth Harley and Glen Boreham.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Soap Opera continues!
The quality of my screenplays, the potential of my
projects to reach an audience, is of secondary importance to Screen Australia
than that some member of its staff may feel at risk as a result of having to
read correspondence from me or talk to me. And this is because of claims made
by Ruth Harley for which she provides no evidence at all and which she will
discuss no further. As far as
‘talking’ is concerned (talking with me posing a risk to Screen Australia
staff!) I have had only one conversation with anyone at Screen Australia
regarding CHANTI’S WORLD, just before the dispute proper began – in Sept 2010.
This was with Ross Mathews, Julia Overton and (for part of the meeting) Liz Crosby.
The meeting was amicable. There were no raised voices, no threats, no
intimidation, no making of anyone feel at risk as a result of my behaviour. Ross, Julia and Liz would, if they were
asked, confirm this. Fiona Cameron and Ruth Harley know that this was both an
amicable and (it seemed at the time) a productive meeting. There has been no
other meeting with anyone from Screen Australia since August 2010 There has not
been one telephone conversation between myself and anyone at Screen Australia.
In short, no opportunity for me to make anyone feel at risk. If anyone were to
ask Ruth Harley (or Ross Mathews, Julia Overton or Liz Crosby) if what I write
here is true, they would receive no answer at all. This is because the true
answer, of which all four are aware, would be, “James is right. The meeting was
an amicable one.” Other than Ross not responding to my letters (subsequent to
the one published yesterday) the real problems began when Fiona Cameron decided
to attribute to me (in writing, on file) a totally untrue motive for lodging a
complaint with Ross about Julia Overton’s breach of the agreement we had
arrived at in the meeting. This is all well documented and I will not bore the
reader with the details. I will, however, bore the reader with a copy of a
letter of the kind that Ruth Harley claims amounts to harassment, intimidation
and placing the staff member at risk. It’s contents will be of interest only to
anyone in search of a sue of wording on my part that is evidence of the
intimidation and harassment of which Ruth Harley has accused me.
Liz Crosby
Screen Australia
Level 4, 150 William St.
Woolloomooloo
2011 10th.Jan
2011
Dear Liz
The new
year has begun and, after four months of asking, I can still not get an answer
from Ross or Julia to a simple (but critical) question relating to the
appropriateness or otherwise of my CHANTI’S WORLD development application.
Given that I have no intention of dropping this, despite Ross and Julia’s
stonewalling and Fiona’s Cameron’s determination not to lets the facts
influence her in any way, I am hoping that you may be able to help resolve this
matter.
You cannot
know precisely, of course, what was said by whom at the 25th. August
meeting but you were present for the last five or so minutes of it and are well
aware that it ended amicably - with the problems relating to Julia’s refusal to
acknowledge receipt of letters or answer questions, over a period of three
months, resolved. (Or so it seemed!) What is your understanding of what had been resolved? It is my contention that, in relation to
CHANTI’S WORLD, it was agreed that I would make a development application, the clear
implication being that such an application would be ‘appropriate’ – several of
my questions of Julia over a period of a few months having had to do with
‘appropriateness’. Some weeks later Julia declared that my application had been
‘inappropriate’. Both propositions cannot be correct!
If I was
not pleased with the outcome of the meeting with Ross and Julia as a result of
the resolution I have described many times, what was it that I was pleased
with? I would certainly not have been pleased if the outcome had been that a
CHANTI’S WORLD application from me was ‘inappropriate’. Nor would I have made
an application if this is what I had been told.
Given what
seems to be Elisa Harris’ refusal to even ask Ross and Julia if my account of
what was said in the meeting is accurate or not (and, needless to say, Fiona’s
similar lack of interest in this vital question) could you please let both me
and the Ombudsman’s office know what your recollection is of the resolution of
the 25th. August meeting? Why was I pleased? If not with the fact
that I would be able to apply with CHANTI’S WORLD, with what?
Yes, I
know that Fiona has said that all future communication on this matter must be
with her but Fiona has also made it quite clear, in writing, that she has no intention
of communicating any further on this matter – a bureaucratic sleight of hand
worthy of ‘Yes Prime Minister’, ‘Monty Python’ and, of course, the novels of
Franz Kafka.
I have
attached a copy of my 5th. Jan letter to Elisa Harris in the
Ombudsman’s office. It speaks for itself. I am copying this to Elisa in hopes
you and she might, at least, speak on the telephone and move this matter closer
to a resolution based on facts and not on suppositions made by Elisa about
Fiona’s thought processes.
cheers
James
Ricketson
cc Elisa Harris, Ombudsman’s office
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Doug
I had a conversation not too long ago with a fellow filmmaker who paid his dues, many years ago, as a film bureaucrat. He told me that twice, in his role as bureaucrat, he realized that he had made a wrong judgement. In both cases he called the applicant and invited them to come to the AFC and have a talk. In both cases the matters were resolved quickly and amicably. I had similar experiences with two Chief Executives a couple of decades ago – Kim Williams and Joe Skrznsky (forgive me Joe if I’ve spelt your name wrong!). Over a cup of coffee we chatted about whatever the issue was and either agreed or agreed to disagree and parted friends. Yes, times have changed and perhaps such face to face meetings are no longer feasible but in disputes such as my own (especially when the stakes are as high as they are) it should be possible for a resolution to be arrived at quickly and with both sides agreeing to abide by the decision made by the Conciliator. There is no-one within the Ministry for the Arts who can pay this role or who is prepared to play this role. And it is not the way the office of the Ombudsman works. I suggested to the Ombudsman right at the outset what I have suggested today on my blog – a disinterested third party who is concerned only with verifiable facts. It could not be done. The argument might be presented that it would waste too much of Screen Australia’s precious time if it were to engage in the kind of dispute resolution I am suggesting. I would argue that it would waste much less (considerably less) time for such conciliation processes to be embarked upon. But even more important that the time wasted on exercises such as the one I am engaged with SA is the erosion of good will that occurs in the process – filmmakers resentful at being ignored, not having their letters responded to and so on; bureaucrats resentful at being continually criticized for this and that. I tried, last year, to organize a film forum at which filmmakers, bureaucrats, all involved in the industry, could debate the multifarious issues that confront us all – no matter which side of the table we sit on. The format could have been somewhat like Q & A – program which, for the most part, manages to present opposing views of contentious subjects without the panellists going for each other’s throats. In short, civilized dialogue/debate between people with opposing views. Screen Australia declined to take part. A pity, because I think that such dialogue/debate would make everyone (filmmakers and film bureaucrats alike) realize that we are all in the same boat and for the some reasons – to make the best possible films we can. Sometimes we’ll succeed and sometimes we won’t. And when we don’t, lets talk about (if need be argue about) why.
I happened to be present for what I think was the very first meeting of the new SBS after Bruce Gyngell took the helm. There were a dozen or so of us in the room. Bruce said, (and these are pretty close to his exact words) “Seven out of ten of the decisions I make will be good ones and three will not. This is the reality of the business we are in.” The problem as I see if with Screen Australia (and my own experience is just one example of it) is that there is no willingness on the part of the organization to accept that it ever makes mistakes. It’s not just Screen Australia, of course. We see it in the area of federal politics – the use of ‘spin’ to paper over mistakes rather than the simple admission, “Hey, we got that wrong. Well try hard not to make the same mistake again.”