THE INTERVIEW!

It will come as no surprise to any reader of my blog that there is more to my dispute with Screen Australia than meets the eye. My attempt, wearing my journalist’s hat, to interview Ruth Harley in 2009 speaks for itself:

THE INTERVIEW

Out story begins in Nov. 2009. Screen Australia. Screen Australia is close to one year old and I (from here on, JR) wants to write an article about the current state of our film industry and culture. 

JR seeks an interview with Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman. Martha tells him that all interview requests must go through Victoria Buchan of The Lantern Group.

Nov 13, 2009  

Subject: request for an interview with Martha Coleman and Ruth Harley

Dear Victoria

I will be writing an article about Screen Australia and request an opportunity to conduct an interview with Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009  

from Victoria

Hi
As discussed on the phone today i am happy to find the time to set up an interview as requested but we do need to know where it will run and when as we have a number of current requests from a range of outlets which we are working to schedule and facilitate. If you can advise me those details I will do my best to find a time as soon as possible. 

Thanks 

Victoria Buchan (VB)
 
JR Newspapers are not clamouring to commission any articles at all these days - least of all about Screen Australia and the Australian Film Industry. I will write my article 'on spec' - as I have done every article I have ever written and submit it to various newspapers and magazines. If no newspaper or magazine chooses to pick it up, so be it. If Ruth and Martha choose not to be interviewed, so be it. If they are very busy right now (which I can appreciate) I will wait until they are less busy if you can give me some idea of when this might be.

VB Thanks for the information. I’ll put the request in the system but as I said we don’t have any time right now and have a number of other requests in as well, given we are on the 1 year anniversary of Ruth’s appointment.

JR It would be good to know ASAP whether Ruth and Martha will actually agree to an interview and at least a rough time frame within which it might occur. I am writing the article now and don't really want to be waiting around till the new year.

JR does not receive a response to this email, so writes again to Victoria.

JR With SPAA now over I trust that it will be possible to get an answer from Ruth and Martha re an interview. If their intention is simply NOT to do an interview with me I'd prefer to know this sooner rather than later.

VB As I said we won’t be able to find a time until we know when and where the story will be published.

JR Encore will publish my article but I am still hopeful that a version of it will be published by either the Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian.

Victoria Buchan does not respond to this email . The Sydney Morning Herald expresses an interest in an article but it does not commission from freelance journalists and only accepts articles written ‘on spec’.

27 Nov 2009  email to Victoria Buchan

JR It is now three weeks since I requested, directly, an interview with Martha and Ruth. A week later Martha suggested that the request should be made through you. It is now two weeks since I followed Martha's instructions but we seem to be getting nowhere fast.  Please do let me know if Martha and Ruth agree to an interview.  And if they do, roughly what time frame are we looking at?

JR receives no response to this email.

30 Nov 2009

JR (to Victoria Buchan) Do Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman agree, in principle, to being interviewed for my article? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
 

1 Dec 2009 

VB At this point they are not available.

JR At what point will they become available? Some time before Christmas? Some time early in the new year? Please give me a time frame?

Victorian Buchan does not respond to this email.

4^th Dec. email to Martha Coleman

JR It is a month now since I requested an opportunity to conduct an interview with you and Ruth for an article about Screen Australia and our film ‘industry’. At any time in the past month you could have responded with, “James, we are incredibly busy right now what with X and Y. Could it hold off until Z?” Instead, you have outsourced the business of ignoring my emails to Victoria at the Lantern Group – Victoria eventually informing me curtly that an interview was not possible ‘at this time’….It seems that you and Ruth have no intention of making yourself available for an interview at any time and that you are reluctant to put this into writing as this would make it much too obvious that Screen Australia does not place a high priority on transparency or accountability. Perhaps the hope is that if you ignore my requests for an interview for long enough I will simply give up – leaving you in the position of being able to say, in all honesty,  if challenged on this, “What nonsense! We never denied James an interview! We were just too busy at the time etc.”

11^th Dec. email to Martha Coleman

JR Following on from my email of Friday 4th. Dec. - a response to which, needless to say, I did not receive....Clearly, you and Ruth have no intention of either agreeing to an interview or of not agreeing to an interview. The end result (and the only one that counts) is that no interview is going to take place. C'est la vie!

JR persists with emails that receive no response. Until 6 weeks later when Fiona Cameron responds:

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 

Dear Mr Ricketson,

I understand that you have requested an interview with the CEO and/or the Head of Development for an article that you are writing 'on spec'. I am advised that our media relations company, the Lantern Group, has already advised you that providing detailed information or interviews for articles being written on spec is not possible given the competing demands on Screen Australia's time.  It is fair to say that subsequent to your discussions with the Lantern Group, many of your emails have gone unanswered.  There comes a time when an organisation such as ours cannot afford the time or resources to continue with such unproductive dialogue.

To be clear, the CEO and the Head of Development will not be available for an interview.  

Dear Fiona

If there is to be any dialogue between us regarding my request for an opportunity to interview Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman, can it please be on the basis of the facts and not of spin?

As you know full well, I informed Victorian Buchan both in a telephone conversation and in an email to her written on 22nd. Nov. that I was writing my article for Encore Magazine. And I made reference to this again in my email to Elizabeth Grinston of 27th. Jan to which your email of 29th. Jan is a response. To refresh your memory: 

"Victoria got back to me to say that an interview could not be granted if I did not have a newspaper or magazine lined up to publish it. When I told her that Encore magazine would publish it Victoria told me that an interview was not possible “at this time.” "

Even if I had been writing my article ‘on spec’ (as indeed I was, when I first spoke with Victoria on he phone) what difference does this make? With a few exceptions (commissioned work) I have spent my entire career starting work on projects ‘on spec’ and completing stage one before approaching a broadcaster or publisher. The same applies for many freelance journalists. Does Screen Australia have a policy of only giving interviews to affiliated journalists?

You write:

 “There comes a time when an organisation such as ours cannot afford the time or resources to continue with such unproductive dialogue.” 

Again, this is, as you are aware, factually incorrect – as even a cursory glance at my attempts to communicate with Ruth, Martha and Ross vis a vis my interview request would reveal. It is the total lack of dialogue with Ruth, Martha and Ross regarding my interview requests that has led me to continue making such requests.

That Ross Mathews has not responded to my emails of 10th Dec, 17th. Dec and 12th. Jan. is not anomalous behaviour on the part of Screen Australia personnel, it is standard procedure. Again, in my email to Elizabeth on 27th. Jan I wrote:

"My email of 11th Dec to Martha (see below), has still not been answered. It seems that Screen Australia has abandoned all pretence at transparency, accountability and professional courtesy."

Email from Fiona Cameron 1st Feb 2010

Dear Mr Ricketson,

Screen Australia and its executive team cannot see any value (for either party) in acceding to an interview request. No such interview will be forthcoming.

yours sincerely,

Fiona Cameron

Email to Fiona Cameron 1^st. Feb 2010

Dear Fiona

Does this mean that I will not be getting answers to any of my questions either?

cheers

James 

Email from Fiona Cameron 1st Feb 2010 1 Feb 2010

We are not in a position to spend time and resources undertaking research for your article.  There are a variety of sources open to you including our annual report and our website Get the Picture.  I would encourage you to use these services.

Regards,

Fiona Cameron

Email to Fiona Cameron 1^st. Feb 2010

Dear Fiona

I have not requested that you or anyone else at Screen Australia do any research on my behalf. Where did this come from? This is a new reason - to add to the other two given so far for why an interview can't happen - (1) Too busy and (2) No value!

I requested an interview with Ruth and Martha close to three months ago now - logical for a journalist preparing an article. Given that they were 'too busy' to speak with me, I requested an interview with Ross who, as an experienced filmmaker, would be well placed to talk with me. Either Ross does not wish to do so or he has been forbidden from doing so! Hard to know given that Ross does not respond to any emails I send to him.

I accept, after close to three months, that no-one from Screen Australia will speak to me during the preparation of my article.  I will see if a member of the Screen Australia Board will do so. It would be an awful shame not to have a Screen Australia perspective.

Email from Fiona Cameron 1st Feb 2010

Our position regarding an interview is I believe quite clear and I don't intend to be drawn into the issues you have raised extensively with other Screen Australia executives.

I do not intend to enter into any further correspondence regarding these matters.

Regards

Fiona Cameron
Executive Director Strategy and Operations

Email to Fiona Cameron 2nd Feb 2010

Dear Fiona

I have indeed raised various issues with 'other Screen Australia executives' this past year. For the most part this has involved the asking of questions that Screen Australia executives simply will not answer…simple questions that require either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer."

…I will leave it to others to decide whether or not I have a right to ask questions such as this and whether it is appropriate for Screen Australia executives, in this case yourself, to refuse to answer them.

Really, Fiona, treating filmmakers with such a lack of professional respect is not good policy.

Letter to the Screen Australia Board 1st. Feb 2010

Dear Members of the Board

I wonder if any member of the Board would be interested in talking to me vis a vis an article I am preparing about the Australian Film Industry?

I realize that this may be a slightly unusual and perhaps inappropriate request but the fact is that Ruth Harley, Martha Coleman, Ross Mathews, Elizabeth Grinston and Fiona Cameron have all declined to be interviewed.

No doubt, were you to ask any of the above-mentioned Screen Australia employees why they do not wish to be interviewed, you would be given any one of a number of reasons. I have been given three different reasons so far.

… I can’t get anyone at Screen Australia to give me a straight answer to any question – not even those that require merely a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer of that can be answered in two words. The current regime of Screen Australia personnel is the most recalcitrant I have ever encountered in my close to 40 years in the industry. It is much easier to speak with a human being at the Australian Tax Office than it is to speak with a human being at Screen Australia.

I am not alone in my experience of being stone-walled by Screen Australia. Many of my fellow filmmakers are, though few are prepared to speak publicly for fear of reprisals. Ours has ceased to be an industry in which there is open (if sometimes heated) discussion about the best way to proceed in these difficult times. We now have, in effect, a Soviet model of filmmaking and any criticism of Screen Australia (implicit or explicit) will be dealt with in the way my requests for an interview have been – the recipients of my emails apparently fearful that I might make some critical observations about Screen Australia policy.

Email to Ruth Harley 1^st March 2010

Dear Ruth

I have received no response to my letter of 5th. Feb. and it seems that none will be forthcoming… Yourself, Martha Coleman, Ross Mathews, Elizabeth Grinston, Fiona Cameron, Glen Boreham and Peter Garrett have all made it abundantly clear that no-one within Screen Australia or the Ministry responsible for the organization’s administration is prepared to answer any questions at all from me in relation to Screen Australia’s policies and modus operandi. The fifth and final reason for this refusal is based on a preconception of Glen’s that is demonstrably false if anyone bothered to check with the facts. (see letter to Glen Boreham dated 24th.)

Letter to Glen Boreham, Chair, Screen Australia Board

The Hon Peter Garrett MP has likewise declined to be interviewed for my article – leaving me with no-one at any level of Screen Australia or the Ministry responsible for the organization prepared to answer any questions at all about the role that Screen Australia plays in the film industry. This is an extraordinary state of affairs and makes a mockery of any pretence that Screen Australia has of transparency and accountability.

No interview was ever granted to me, no questions were answered. The Sydney Morning Herald could not consider publishing an article that did not include the perspective of Australia's peak film funding body.

My third arrest for trespassing?

Members of the Screen Australia Board

level 4, 150 William St

Woolloomooloo 2011

29th. Nov 2012 

Dear Board Members

“Playing fast and loose with the truth”

“Being parsimonious (economical) with the truth”

“Stretching the truth”

“Taking factual short-cuts”

These are some of the euphemisms we use in public discourse these days to avoid using the words ‘lies’ and ‘lying’. These clearly understood words of yesteryear went out of fashion with the advent of political correctness and spin doctors whose job is to obfuscate and manipulate others into viewing the world in a way that serves their purposes - regardless of facts, evidence and the truth. Today’s successful bureaucrat, technocrat or party apparatchik must, along with being skilled at their designated job, also be a skilled spin-doctor; must be able to make a pigs ear appear to be a silk purse and must, like the Emperor with No Clothes, be able to convince his or her Courtiers that s/he is not naked at all but finely attired. Such is the world we live in now and those of us who see that what is being presented to us as a silk purse is in reality a sow’s ear, those of us who can see clearly that the Emperor (or Empress) is wearing few if any clothes, are confronted with a choice - to keep our mouths shut and reap the benefits that accrue to being obedient Courtiers or speak a truth based on facts, on evidence, and suffer the consequences.

Ruth Harley has conjured up an alternative reality in which I have placed Screen Australia staff at risk and managed, it seems. to convince you all of the veracity of this reality. An independent observer of this dispute would be quite justified in considering the possibility

that it is me who has conjured up an alternative reality - one in which I have not placed Screen Australia’s staff at risk with my correspondence when in fact I have. 

Given that correspondence, be it in letter or email form, either exists or does not exist, the key to determining whether or not I am guilty as charged is to produce the correspondence; produce the paragraph, sentence, phrase or single word that is even mildly suggestive of my having placed any member of Screen Australia staff at risk. 

The original charges of harassment and intimidation seem to have fallen by the wayside! Is this because both words have readily identifiable definitions whereas ‘at risk’ is so vague as to mean whatever Ruth Harley wants it to mean; whatever the imagination conjures? ‘ At risk’ is a useful expression because it carries with it the implication (unsubstantiated by evidence) that I pose a danger  of some kind Screen Australia staff. This non-specific danger is so great that even assessing a documentary or script development  application from me could be damaging to the reader/assessor’s physical well-being. Mind you, the same reader/assessor would not be at risk reading Producer Offset documents relating to a film project of mine! Does this not strike you as odd? The lack of logic!?

That Screen Australia refuses identify the passages in my correspondence  that place SA staff at risk suggests one of two possibilities:

(1) There is not one scrap of evidence on file that I have placed Screen Australia staff at risk.

(2) There is evidence but Screen Australia chooses not to make it public and certainly not share it with the accused - me.

If (1) be the case, why has the Board extended the ban on me till May 2014, as opposed to apologizing for its wrongful ban?

If (2) be the case, can the Board please provide me and the film community with a reason why the evidence of my crime must remain a secret?

My request that Screen Australia make public the evidence it has that I have placed members of staff at risk (and, until recently, that I have harassed and intimidated them also) has fallen on deaf ears. My suggestion, made may times this past six months, that some form of mediation be entered into has likewise fallen on deaf ears. Ruth Harley’s response to both of these suggestions (with the Board’s blessing, presumably) is to send me a hefty bill that dates back 8 years and which resulted from, to quote Keith Lupton’s 18th July 2005 letter, my company being “inadvertently paid the final audit payment with respect to VIVA! twice.” This is so, though there is a bit more to it than meets the eye - as with the Screen Rights ‘debt’. All that is relevant here is that the non-repayment of these debts did not prevent Screen Australia from investing in the development of a project of mine entitled, interestingly, TRANSPARENCY. The timing of Ruth Harley’s decision to call in these debts requires no comment. In some respects at least, Ruth’s motivations and modus operandi are very transparent indeed.

Yesterday, I received in the mail 40 or so pages of documents from the police relating to the charge to be heard in court on 20th Dec: “Did remain on inclosed lands of Screen Australia...after being requested by Graham Smith, the person apparently in charge the said lands to leave those lands.” I am not sure which will be the more laughable outcome - that I am found guilty or innocent of trespassing in the Screen Australia foyer at 4 pm during business hours doing nothing other than sitting quietly reading marked up correspondence recently handed to me by Ruth Harley! 

My defense in court will be simple. My many attempts over a period of months to be provided with evidence of my crimes having failed, I felt that I had no choice but to try an alternative approach - which I announced a few days earlier in my 11th Sept letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and published online @:

 http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/for-prime-minister-julia-gillard.html. 

To a certain extent this ploy worked. Ruth delivered me the marked up correspondence after five or so months of my asking for it. I was in the process of trying to find evidence in it of my having intimidated or placed at risk Screen Australia staff when the police arrived.

My second attempt at using the same ploy did not work at all, however. No member of the Screen Australia Board wished to speak with me or present me with evidence of my crimes. Instead, with the Board’s knowledge and approval, it seems, the police were called and I was arrested again as I sat in the foyer quietly, posing a risk to no one.

My third arrest will probably occur some time in the next week. Again, I will arrive in the foyer of Screen Australia’s Sydney office with only one objective in mind - to be provided with evidence of my having placed Screen Australia staff at risk. Three arrests for  the crime of asking for evidence of my having intimidated, harassed and placed Screen Australia staff at risk will speak for itself not only of Ruth Harley’s management style but of the Screen Australia Board’s lack of commitment to transparency, accountability and the notion that a person charged with a serious offense (intimidation, placing staff at risk) is entitled to be presented with evidence of his guilt.

The alternative remains that Screen Australia agrees, in the next few days, to engage in some form of mediation to see this dispute resolved on the basis of facts and evidence and not mere allegations.

best wishes

James Ricketson

SHIPS IN THE NIGHT # 2

...continued...

TRACY (voice off) Squeeze me!

MATT looks up. TRACY smiles at him with bright red lips. 

TRACY Can you drive me home?

MATT nods in the direction of the head of the rank.

MATT Gotta take the first cab in the rank.

TRACY Ouch! What did you do to your hand?

MATT dismisses the question with a gesture, looks back down at the greeting card.

TRACY For someone you love, ay!

MATT  Sorry, but you gotta take the first cab in the rank.

TRACY When my boyfriend gives me a present it’s usually because he’s fucked up bigtime.

MATT nods, notices TRACY playing nervously with a silver ring on her finger. She points to the head of the rank.

TRACY First cab in the rank?

MATT nods. TRACY nods, smiles and, as she turns to walk off, waves goodbye to MATT like a young child: thumb outstretched and four fingers moving, flapping up and down: ’ta ta’.

MATT watches her for a long moment as she walks to the head of the rank. He picks up his phone, calls Juliet again, holds the mobile to his ear:

MESSAGE The person you have called.

MATT looks at his mobile for a long moment - with mixed feelings about the call he is about to make: “S”, “E”…Serena. After several rings, Serena answers the phone.

SERENA’S VOICE Hey…

MATT   Hey…(SILENCE) Just…I’ll be there in 45 mins, max. Okay? (SILENCE) Unless…!?

A long silence. MATT grimaces; waits 

SERENA’S VOICE Okay.  

Another awkward silence. MATT’S attention is caught by BLUE at the head of the rank arguing with someone obscured from his view. 

MATT But not if you don’t want me to…

SERENA’S VOICE Forty five minutes, right?

MATT Sixty max…

SERENA’S VOICE Okay.

Serena hangs up. MATT hangs up, sighs, looks to the head of the rank where, judging by his body language, BLUE is losing his argument. 

MATT returns the mobile to his left jacket pocket, looks at his bloody knuckles for a moment, then down at the greeting card. He writes:

You know…

The deep base throbbing of a revving car engine. MATT sees, in the mirror at the side of his car, a ‘pimped out’ purple sedan (outsize wheels, gold dragon decals along the sides) cruising slowly up behind him. 

The purple sedan pulls up alongside him for a moment as its DRIVER and passenger, who we will get to know as GBH. GBH has a shaved head with skull-and-crossbones tattoo. He looks to where BLUE is arguing. A malicious smile appears on his face.  

MATT tilts his head slightly to read the letters tattooed beneath the skull-and-crossbones in italic script: GBH. 

GBH turns, sees MATT looking at him. His face becomes contorted with an angry snarl (“What the fuck are you looking at!”) as he looks directly into MATT’S eyes – challenging him to look away. MATT holds his gaze, shakes his head ever so slightly: (“Sorry, mate, I’m neither intimidated nor impressed!”) 

GBH raises his fist aggressively at MATT, who raises his bloody-knuckled fist in response. Macho standoff! 

The DRIVER draws GBH’s attention to the fact that BLUE has interrupted his argument and is looking towards them. As BLUE runs off GBH gestures to the DRIVER to drive. He puts his foot on the accelerator and the purple car careens down the road, tires screeching, in the direction that BLUE is running. 

MATT watches as the purple car pulls up close to BLUE, running. GBH – a tall solidly built man carrying about 30 kilos too much weight – leaps from the car and, with surprising agility, gives chase to BLUE who, in an attempt to evade him, rushes onto the road. GBH catches him in the middle of it, lifts him by the scruff of his jacket off the ground. BLUE, tiny compared with GBH, waves his arms around, talks fast, trying to placate GBH. GBH relaxes his grip, lowers him to the ground, whereupon BLUE lifts his knee hard between GBH’S legs. 

MATT watches GBH crumple to the ground in agony as BLUE races off, disappearing from view. 

GBH struggles to his feet and hobbles back to the purple car, bashing the bonnet hard with his fist before getting back in. The purple car then performs a radical u-turn – tires screeching – and drives back in the direction it came from. 

MATT catches a glimpse of GBH as the purple sedan passes – his face expressing both his rage and his humiliation.

MATT’S attention returns to the gift card in his hands. As he thinks about what he is going to write, he sees:

At the head of the rank TRACY leans towards the driver talking to him through the window. MATT looks back down at the card, writes tentatively – not just because his hand hurts but because he is uncertain how to express himself. He continues with his writing:

You know how much…

MATT looks up, sees: 

TRACY, two cabs in front of him, leaning close to talk to the driver through the window. The driver, not won over by her bright smile, shakes his head. TRACY looks back at MATT, grins, shrugs her shoulders. MATT shakes his head.

TRACY moves to the cab in front of MATT. She leans to talk to (and smile at) the driver through the window, lifting one leg slightly in the air in a ‘sexy’ gesture she has seen in some movie. She is trying to play the role of vamp but hasn’t quite got her performance right yet. 

MATT looks back down at the card, continues writing, pauses, thinks what to write next.

You know how much I…

TRACY walks up, grinning cheekily.

TRACY You are the first cab in the rank, now. 

...to be continued...

SHIPS IN THE NIGHT #1

                         SHIPS IN THE NIGHT
                        
                        Low budget ($250,000) feature film 
                        set almost entirely inside a taxi.

1 EXT. CAHILL EXPRESSWAY. NIGHT

Credit sequence. Music over. “If you leave me can I come too” by Mental as Anything.

A taxi drives along the Cahill Expressway towards the Sydney Harbour Bridge; the Sydney Opera House in the background.

2 EXT. SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE. NIGHT

Credit sequence continues. Tilt down from bridge to reveal MATT, mid 40s, through the windscreen of his taxi. Behind him, in the back seat, a YOUNG COUPLE wrapped in each others arms. 

3 INT. CAB. NIGHT

Credit sequence continues. MATT, a little overweight, his hair thinning, turns the music up a little, bops along to it. An old favourite. MATT wears a tan sports jacket with a club logo on the breast pocket. 

MENTAL AS ANYTHING “Don't let it happen again 'cause that I couldn't take…” 

A smile plays on MATT’S lips. The song brings back memories. The YOUNG MAN and YOUNG WOMAN, late teens, uni students, look at MATT bopping along to the music, exchange looks.

MENTAL AS ANYTHING “…once was quite enough…”

MATT mouths the words. He knows them by heart.

MENTAL AS ANYTHING “…It's easy to forgive,  harder to forget.”

MATT, having forgotten his passengers, sings along:

MATT “If you leave me, can I come too? We can always stay…”

The YOUNG COUPLE watch MATT from behind, bopping along with greater enthusiasm now. What he lacks in singing talent he makes up for with passion. They laugh, shake their heads. 

MATT “…But if you leave me, can I come too? And if you go, can I come too?”

The YOUNG WOMAN, a little intoxicated, leans forward, her head close to MATT’S, breaking into his memories as she speaks:

YOUNG WOMAN Any chance of listening to something from this century?

MATT (grins) Nope. 

YOUNG WOMAN  Like, we’re paying you, right…?

MATT  To get you home…not to be your DJ.

The YOUNG MAN laughs, pulls her back into his arms.  

YOUNG WOMAN We’re paying him, right! I mean…

The YOUNG MAN stops her with a kiss. MATT looks in the rear-vision mirror at them as they kiss, whisper conspiratorially.

End credit sequence.

4 EXT. SUBURBAN STREET. NIGHT

Matt’s taxi makes its way down a leafy street in an affluent suburb. The sound of a rooster crowing announces the arrival of a phone call.

YOUNG WOMAN (voice off) Next left, thanks driver.

The left hand indicator of the taxi flashes yellow.

5 INT. TAXI. SUBURBAN STREET. NIGHT

As he turns left MATT reaches into the left side pocket of his sports jacket with his left hand, takes out his mobile phone. We catch a glimpse of the logo on his jacket – long enough to register the word ROOSTERS. On the LCD screen, one word: Juliet. MATT smiles, presses an icon. A photo appears onscreen: 

a smiling girl (15, 16) with braces on her teeth.

MATT  Sweetheart.

JULIET’S VOICE Hey, dad. (A BEAT) You driving?

MATT Yep. (A BEAT) You okay?

JULIE Can you talk?

MATT Call you back in five, okay?

JULIET’S VOICE Promise?

MATT Promise.

Juliet hangs up. MATT is driving now down a street with a park on one side; big expensive houses on the other. He does not notice the YOUNG WOMAN taking off her high heeled shoes.  

YOUNG MAN Anywhere here thanks…

MATT slows, pulls to the side of the road, looks at the meter.

MATT $56.

The YOUNG WOMAN gets out, carrying her shoes. The YOUNG MAN walks to the front passenger door, opens it, takes out his wallet. The YOUNG WOMAN, shoes in hand, walks barefoot into the park. As the YOUNG MAN opens his wallet the YOUNG WOMAN breaks into a sprint. The YOUNG MAN smiles sheepishly, shrugs. 

YOUNG MAN Sorry…

He turns and runs into the park. 

MATT Fuck!

MATT is out of the car in a flash and giving chase. 

6 EXT. TAXI/PARK. NIGHT

MATT chases the YOUNG WOMAN, the YOUNG MAN veering off in another direction. 

MATT is a big barrel-chested man whose muscle has lost its tone. He can run fast, however, and is rapidly gaining on the YOUNG WOMAN. He is within grabbing distance when he stumbles. One of his slipper shoes has come off. 

MATT stops for a moment, picks his shoe up, continues the chase. The YOUNG WOMAN is now pulling away from him. MATT, in his frustration, throws his shoe at her. It would be a direct hit were it not for the fact that the YOUNG WOMAN turns at just the right moment, sees the shoe coming at her, reaches out and catches it – letting out a joyous whoop as she does so. 

MATT, not in the best condition, is out of breath. He puts his hand to his heart, tries to bring his rapid breathing under control.

The YOUNG WOMAN, 30 meters away, slips her high-heeled shoes back on; ambles casually up a street on the other side of the park – tossing Matt’s shoe into the air, catching it. 

MATT looks down at his feet: one red sock, one green sock. He takes off his remaining slipper shoe and turns to return to his cab. He hears laughter, turns and sees:

The YOUNG MAN running up to the YOUNG WOMAN. She passes matt’s slipper to him as if it were a football. The YOUNG MAN catches it and they stroll off, laughing.  

MATT ambles back towards his cab, shoulders stooped in weary resignation and defeat, clutching his one slipper – a small lonely figure illuminated by the headlights of his taxi.  

7 INT. CAB. SUBURBAN STREET. NIGHT

MATT drops into the driver’s seat, shuts the door, stares into space for a long moment. The sound of a rooster crowing. Matt’s mobile is ringing but he does not hear it. Suddenly, explosively, he smashes his left fist into the windscreen. It does not break but from his painful yelp and the way he shakes his wrist it is clear MATT has hurt himself. He looks at his knuckles. The skin is broken. Blood appears. Only now does he register the rooster crowing sound from his left jacket pocket. He moves to reach into the pocket with his left hand, notices that small droplets of blood have appeared on his knuckles.  He decides to get his mobile with his right hand. It is an awkward maneuver and by the time he has the mobile in his hand Juliet has hung up.

MATT Fuck!

MATT looks at his bloodied knuckles, licks the blood away, grimaces a little; it stings. He opens and closes his fist, checks for broken bones. There seem to be none but he is in pain. He tries to press ‘J’ and ‘U’ on the keypad with his left hand, but with the pain and his big fingers he has difficulty pressing the right keys on the small device. He gets it eventually. The photo of Juliet appears onscreen.

MESSAGE The person you have called is not…

MATT terminates the call, tries again.

MESSAGE The person you have called is not available. If you wish to…  

MATT terminates the call, returns his mobile to his left jacket pocket. His raw knuckles come into contact with cloth. Ouch! Worse, there is a bloodstain at the edge of the pocket.

MATT shakes his head, curses at himself wordlessly, reaches out, opens the glove compartment, takes out a packet of Kleenex tissues and tries to clean up the blood on his jacket with it. This only serves to spread the stain over a larger area. MATT hangs his head, shakes it. He is at the end of his tether. He reaches forward, turns on the ignition.

8 INT/EXT. CITY STREET. NIGHT

MATT drives, a blood stained Kleenex tissue wrapped around his knuckles. He doesn’t like the music he is listening to, punches a button on the radio; changes stations. He doesn’t like the new musical option either, punches another button in frustration. His mobile rings. He takes it out of his left pocket, glances at the screen: Juliet. He lifts it to his ear, sees a police car approaching, drops the mobile out of view, waits till the police car passes, checks his rear vision mirror, lifts it to his ear. Before he has a chance to speak:

JULIET’S VOICE You still got a passenger?

MATT No.

JULIET’S VOICE You were going to call me back!

MATT I tried, but got your message bank.

JULIET’S VOICE I didn’t get any message. (A BEAT) You driving?

MATT I’m pulling over. Hang on.  

MATT slows, moves to the side of the road.

JULIET’S VOICE You okay? You sound…

MATT I’m fine. You?

JULIET’S VOICE You want the long story or the twitter version?

MATT (smiles) How’s school?

JULIET’S VOICE Uni…

MATT (grimaces) I meant uni…

JULIET’S VOICE Cool. Going really well.(A BEAT) I know it’s late, but… 

Juliet needs a little encouragement but is not getting it. 

JULIET’S VOICE I need…

JULIET pauses. MATT’S mood changes.

MATT Is your mother there?

JULIET’S VOICE No. This is me calling…Fuck dad!

MATT Okay, it’s just…the last time…

JULIET’S VOICE The last time was the last time…I’m sorry… I shouldn’t have hung up on you…

MATT It’s OK.

JULIET’S VOICE No, it’s not OK.

MATT OK.

MATT is at a loss how to talk to his daughter. A long silence. 

MATT You still there?

JULIET’S VOICE Yes. Sorry for calling so late… early…but… 

MATT No…I’ve pulled over. (A FEW BEATS) It’s OK. (A BEAT) How is your mother?  

JULIET’S VOICE You don’t really want to know!

MATT Okay.

JULIET’S VOICE Okay, okay, okay!(A BEAT) Hassling me bigtime…about…that money…you know…for my teeth!

MATT Why doesn’t she call me herself?

JULIET’S VOICE I didn’t call you about my teeth.

MATT Okay. 

JULIET’S VOICE Jesus, dad!

MATT What?

JULIET’S VOICE Doesn’t matter? 

MATT Tell her I’ll put some money into her account tomorrow, okay…today…How much do you need?

JULIET’S VOICE Whatever you think I’m worth. Bye dad.

Juliet hangs up. MATT shakes his head, angry with himself. He tries to call Juliet back, gets her message bank:

MESSAGE The person you have called…

MATT terminates the call - angry, perplexed; at a loss to understand. As he stares out through the windscreen a car approaches, it’s high-beam headlights blinding him for a second and drawing his attention to something on his windscreen. He leans forward, looks at it closely, but can see nothing. 

MATT turns on the interior light but can still not make out what it was he saw. He picks up a flashlight, shines it on the windscreen, finds the right angle. There is a tiny crack where his fist met the glass. MATT laughs, shakes his head. It is not a happy laugh. He looks down at his bloody Kleenex covered knuckles. His attention is caught by a soft cracking sound. The tiny crack is growing – one inch, two inches…and then it stops. MATT stares at it; his jaw clenched tight.

9 EXT. TAXI RANK. NIGHT

MATT sits in his taxi, six cabs back from the head of the rank. Pubs and clubs closed some time ago and the streets are  almost deserted. 

On the other side of the road, unseen by MATT, TRACY, mid teens, in mini skirt, ‘boob tube’ and very high heels, walks purposefully past THREE DRUNKEN YOUNG MEN in the street now  who make no attempt to hide their hormone driven interest. 

10 INT. CAB. TAXI RANK. NIGHT

MATT holds his mobile at his ear:

MESSAGE The person you have called is not…

He places his mobile on the seat beside him, takes the blood-stained Kleenex from his knuckles. The bleeding has stopped but he has raw pink wounds on three knuckles. MATT places the Kleenex in a plastic rubbish bag at his feet, takes a wad of $10 and $20 bills from his money pouch. 

11 EXT. CITY STREET. NIGHT

TRACY ignores the THREE DRUNKEN YOUNG MEN leering behind her as she stands at the edge of the road across from the taxi rank, checking out the various drivers – one of whom is MATT. TRACY is dressed and made up to look 19 but probably only 17. No longer a girl, not yet a woman but trying hard. 

A nervous skinny red-haired man, BLUE, (late teens) calls out from behind a tree – a plaintive pleading in his voice.

BLUE (voice off) Trace!

TRACY ignores him, steps off the curb.

12 INT. CAB. TAXI RANK. NIGHT

MATT finishes counting his nights takings, shakes his head. A bad night! He leans forward to look at the crack in the window. It has not grown any bigger. He takes a sign from under his seat, sticks it on the windscreen: SOUTHERN SUBURBS

TRACY crosses the road, her eyes on MATT. She is out of his field of vision and he does not notice her.

Close on MATT. He takes a slim parcel (10” x 8”) tied with a ribbon from the bag beneath his legs, opens the envelope attached to it, takes out a greeting card, flips it open, takes a pen from his pocket with his damaged hand. 

As he thinks about what to write (MATT is left-handed) his attention is caught by TRACY.

TRACY (voice off) Squeeze me!

MATT looks up. TRACY smiles at him with bright red lips. 

TRACY Can you drive me home?

...to be continued...