It is now close to 4 weeks since I sent this letter to
Samantha Lang and members of the Australian Director’s Guild. No response so
far.
Samantha
Lang
President
Australian
Director’s Guild
3rd.
March 2016
Dear
Samantha and members of the ADG board
Screen
Australia’s ban on me was imposed almost four years ago. In that time the
Australian Director’s Guild has not viewed the banning of a fellow director as
being sufficiently newsworthy to mention in the ADG newsletter.
In 2012 Fiona
Cameron twice called the police to have me arrested whilst doing nothing other than sit in the
foyer of Screen Australia during business hours and refusing to leave until I
was provided with evidence that I had, as alleged by Ruth Harley, intimidated
and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. This second arrest led
to my spending a weekend in jail and appearing in court on the charge of
‘trespassing’! Sitting in the foyer of Screen Australia at 4 pm in the
afternoon or a work day!
The jailing
of a director for ‘trespassing’ in the Screen Australia foyer was not viewed by the ADG as being
sufficiently newsworthy to rate mention in the ADG newsletter.
Why is
this?
Is it because
the ADG is reliant on Screen Australia funding and dare not bite the hand that
feeds it? Or is it because I am not a
member of the ADG and so my being banned and jailed by Screen Australia, being
prevented from making films in Australia, is of no concern to my fellow
directors?
When we
founded what is now the ADG (and I was, as you know, a founding member) it was
in large part so that directors could support each other in such a way that
each individual director did not have to battle with film bureaucrats alone. Directors
would support fellow directors. Strength in numbers. Strength in unity. Speaking
with one voice. The message ASDA sent to the film world was, “We are united as
directors and we will support each other.”
What has
happened to this objective?
Even if
I were not a director, if I were a writer, or a producer, or any member of the
filmmaking fraternity, the ADG we founded all those years ago would, at the
very least, as a matter of principle, have
written to Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board with a simple question:
“Could you please provide the ADG with evidence that xxxx
has intimidated and/or placed members of Screen Australia staff with his/her
correspondence?”
If the
ADG had any clout (and clout is what the ADG was formed to have!) Screen
Australia would not have been able to brush this question aside. Ruth Harley and
the board would have felt obliged to reply; to be accountable; to provide evidence in support of the
allegations made against a fellow filmmaker. In the event that no evidence was
forthcoming, the ADG would have (this is the ADG of my dreams) put pressure on
Screen Australia to lift the ban. Quickly. And this would have happened in the public
eye because it would have been reported in the ADG newsletter.
In
relation to my banning the ADG did nothing; said nothing. Four years down the
track, in what is clearly a lifetime ban that has destroyed my career as an
Australian filmmaker, the ADG continues to say nothing: “Not our problem!”
The
notion that I placed Screen Australia staff at risk with my correspondence is
both defamatory and nonsense (at risk of what!?), but is there any evidence, perhaps, that I wrote something that was
intimidating? If so, why can Screen Australia not reveal what it was? Why can
Screen Australia not provide even one example of my ‘intimidating
correspondence’? The answer is simple. There is not one example. Ruth Harley
was lying and the board rubber stamped the ban she imposed without bothering to
ask for evidence.
The clue to what has happened here
can be found in my one and only conversation about ‘intimidating
correspondence’ with Fiona, in the Screen Australia foyer, shortly before she
called the police to have me arrested. Fiona told me she told me that she
'felt' intimidated by my correspondence. Fiona seemed to be unable to make a
distinction between 'feeling' intimidated and actually being intimidated. And she
could provide not one example of where something I wrote made her ‘feel’
intimidated.
Perhaps you could, Samantha, even at
this late stage, ask Fiona to provide one paragraph, one sentence, one phrase
or even one word that I wrote to her or any other member of staff that made her
feel intimidated? If the ADG can demonstrate that a lifetime ban on a film
director is a matter of concern I will happily re-join the ADG. If you are not
prepared to even ask this question (and Ray Argall certainly wasn’t) there is
no point in my being a member. There
would be no point anyway since Screen Australia has made it impossible for me
to make films in this country.
If the
banning of a filmmaker is not an issue that the ADG believes warrants
attention, what problems will the ADG address when those in positions of power (Fiona
Cameron in this instance) abuse it to suppress dissent, destroy the careers of
critics or punish anyone who has the temerity to question the propriety of Screen
Australia board members voting money for their own projects with monotonous
regularity? Does the ADG have no commitment at all to free speech? Will the ADG
ever jeopardize its Screen Australia funding by adopting a critical stance in
relation to SA policy? Does the ADG have any principles that are not
self-serving? A line in the sand that it will not cross? Or, in this case, to critically question Screen
Australia’s vindictive desire to destroy the career of an Australian filmmaker
without even being obliged to provide evidence of the crimes he is supposed to have
committed to warrant the ban placed on him?
Will
you, Samantha, and the board, respond in any way to this letter?
I will,
of course, continue to fight for my right to be provided with evidence of my
crimes. And the ADG will, it seems, sit on its hands, bury its head in the
sand, say nothing; do nothing. “You’re
on your own, James. Don’t count on even moral support from us!”
How sad
that an organization founded (amongst other things) to stand up to bureaucratic
bullying of the kind that has occurred here, the abuse of power, should turn a blind eye to the plight of a fellow
filmmaker falsely accused and given no right to defend himself.
I would
appreciate it, Samantha, if you could put the following question to Screen
Australia:
“Could you please provide the ADG with evidence that
James Ricketson has intimidated and/or placed members of Screen Australia staff
with his/her correspondence? And/or with any paragraph, sentence, phrase or
even one word that could have led a member of Screen Australia’s staff to feel
intimidated?”
I have
attached a copy of my second letter to Richard Harris who, as a former
President of the ADG, I was hoping might advocate on my behalf within Screen
Australia. My first letter to Richard can be found at:
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-dangers-of-communicating-with.html
I look
forward to yours and the ADG board’s response.
cheers
James
