Each
day it comes as something of a surprise to me that my blog continues
to get so many page hits! I am sure it is not because the minutiae of
my dispute with Screen Australia are of much interest to anyone other
than myself. I presume it is that readers recognize that something is
at stake here that is relevant to the industry at large.
Another
note to the office of Ombudsman:
“In
Nov 2010, instead of asking Fiona Cameron to produce the ‘greenlit’
correspondence she claimed I had written, your office just presumed,
after a conversation with Fiona on the phone, that it must exist. It
took me a further 20 months of ‘harassing’ correspondence (plus 2
FOI requests and a complaint to the Information Commissioner) to get
hold of correspondence that does not support Fiona’s version of
events – a version that very neatly absolved her of any need to
actually deal with the demonstrable facts that underlay my complaint.
Now there is another lot of intimidating correspondence that I have
allegedly written. Will the office of the Ombudsman ask Ruth Harley
to produce the correspondence or will I have to spend another 20
months ‘harassing’ Screen Australia to acquire copies – only to
discover, in 2014, that there is no evidence at all of my having
intimidated anyone?”
And
this to the Information Commissioner:
“Screen
Australia’s FOI officer has informed me that my request for
specific examples of my having intimidated and placed at risk members
of Screen Australia’s staff in my correspondence is not a valid FOI
request. Is this so? Can Ruth Harley accuse me (or any other
filmmaker) of having written intimidating correspondence , ban them
on the basis of the alleged correspondence and then use FOI
legislation in this way to deny me access to my own correspondence?”
Back
to where I left of yesterday. Here’s a proposition. Others will
disagree with it. This is how it should be in a community in which
there is a free flow of competing ideas: We have in place, in our
film culture, our film industry, what amounts to an autocracy of
senior bureaucrats that does all it can to resist the free flow of
information or, when opportunities for information flow occur, to be
either in control of the way it flows or as in control as possible.
When there is an ‘industry forum’ of some kind organized by film
bureaucrats it is invariably one in which a few bureaucrats sit on a
stage, at a table and talk at as opposed to engage in dialogue with
the assembled filmmakers. Each bureaucrat gives us his or her take on
where Australian film is at right now, where it is heading, its
strengths and weaknesses. No non-bureaucrat gets to speak, to present
an alternative view for the assembled filmmakers to consider. After
the bureaucrats have delivered their mission statements filmmakers
are invited to ask questions from the floor but the resultant Q &
A is limited both in time and in scope. The format makes impossible
vigorous debate about any of the matters raised by the bureaucrats in
their mission statements or other topics that filmmakers might wish
to discuss. Such ‘industry forums’ are rare but nonetheless
presented as ‘consultation with the industry’. This is
consultation of the lowest level. Clayton’s consultation.
A
real debate is one in which a particular proposition is argued, for
and against, by opposing teams with differing (and hopefully
provocative) points of view. At the end of the formal part of the
debate comments from the floor are invited by the moderator. Ideally,
members of both teams will have their ideas challenged and speakers
from the floor will present new and different ideas for all involved
to take away with them to think about, talk about in their respective
guilds and associations. And the bureaucrats making up one of the
teams (my suggestion) will have been appraised of what the collective
feelings of the industry are and be in a position to respond to them
accordingly. Quite apart from the free flow of ideas (always a good
thing) such debates, held on a regular basis, would serve to break
down the us-and-them mentality that pervades the industry.
When
was the last time anything like a real public debate happened in our
industry? Why is it that we wait until Screen Australia or a state
funding body organizes a pale and attenuated version of a debate? Why
don’t we organize one for ourselves? Yes, SPAA, the Writers Guild
and Director’s Guild have their annual conferences and other
get-togethers in which they discuss matters of interest to their
members (as is appropriate) but how often do all three (along with
other lobby groups) get together to discuss, argue about the many
things we share in common as we pursue our craft, our art or whatever
name we chose to give to our chosen profession as story-tellers.
At
the root of my dispute with Screen Australia there is the presumption
on the part of Ruth Harley and other senior bureaucrats that this is
their industry and that we filmmakers had best behave ourselves if we
want to get a slice of the pie. I have even been asked, by a Screen
Australia bureaucrat, “James, why do you make life so difficult for
yourself by criticizing us all the time”. My response, “It is not
my job to be nice to you and it is not your job to differentiate, in
making decisions, between those that do not criticize you and those
who do. Your job is to back the best possible projects.”
This
is our industry and Harley et all are public servants working, on
behalf of the Australian tax-payer, for us, not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment