I do understand that my being banned by Screen Australia is of
little interest to anyone other than myself. However, I also think that there
are some principles involved here that are important, including the right of
filmmakers to be critical of the government funded film bodies such as Screen
Australia without fear of retribution.
I suspect that the real reason why I have been banned
(given that I have intimated and placed no one at risk at Screen Australia) is
because I have been a critic of aspects of Screen Australia’s policies from the
outset; because I have had the temerity to ask questions that neither senior
management nor the SA board wishes to have asked; because I have refused to
accept that senior film bureaucrats at SA can place on file whatever lies they
choose free of any fear that their lies will be exposed for what they are.
It has been an interesting experience, if not always
pleasant, to discover which of my filmmaking colleagues have provided me with
moral support this past 4 years and which have shunned me - presumably on the
basis that I must be guilty as charged! The Australian Director’s Guild, for
example, has not only refused to publish in “Screen Director” anything I write
that is in any way critical of Screen Australia; it has also declined to even
mention, to fellow ADG filmmakers, that I have been banned. Where there is
smoke there must be fire: “James must be guilty!” The alternative is: “Whether James
is guilty or innocent, we cannot afford to alienate Screen Australia!”
Dear
Australian Director’s Guild board members
Despite being
one of the founders of the ADG (then ASDA), despite more than 40 years of
experience in the Australian film and TV industry you have decided that my
being banned by Screen Australia is not a story worthy of being reported to
members of the ADG in your newsletter.
You seem to
have no doubts at all that I am guilty, as alleged by Screen Australia, of
having intimidated, harassed and placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s
staff. You seem to believe that the destruction of my career as an Australian
filmmaker is the appropriate punishment for behavior of the kind alleged by
Screen Australia.
You have
decided that no article of mine can be published in “Screen Director” that is
in any way critical of Screen Australia, no article which raises questions
about the propriety of members of the Screen Australia board awarding many
millions of dollars to fellow board members’ film and television projects.
One of the
reason presented to me as to why my article (see below) could not be published
in Screen Director was that I was not a member. I responded that I would be
quite happy to become a member of the ADG again if this would lead to the
article being published. I did not receive a response from you. Let’s face it,
you do not want me to be a member of the ADG. You have decided that I am
persona non grata – not on the basis of any evidence you have that I am guilty
as charged but because to question the veracity of Screen Australia’s
accusations against me, to stand up in any way for a fellow director, would
imperil a relationship with Screen Australia that the ADG is reliant on if it
is to receive funding from Screen Australia.
Given that
there is not one person, one body (including the ADG) prepared to ask Screen
Australia to provide evidence of my guilt it seems that I have no option but to
resort to legal action in order to have my reputation restored to me.
It is a great
shame, after all these years, that the ADG does not have the intestinal
fortitude to stand up to bureaucratic bullying and intimidation of the kind
that has been on display in Screen Australia’s treatment of me this past four
years.
cheers
James
SCREEN AUSTRALIA’S GAME OF MUSICAL
CHAIRS
On 7th March, 2015, an
article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled:
“Screen Australia Board Meetings
Must Be a Game of Musical Chairs.
Written by Michael West, this
article raises questions that are worthy of debate within the community of
filmmakers who are, in one way or another, reliant on Screen Australia to
develop and finance their film and TV projects.
No such debate has occurred.
Why?
The article begins with the
following sentence:
“Companies associated with actor
and film producer Claudia Karvan were paid $10.5 million by Screen Australia
last year. Karvan is on the board of Screen Australia.”
It then goes on to list the large
amounts of money that members of the Screen Australia board have voted to
invest in the projects of fellow board members in the form of development and
production funds.
“Companies associated with fellow
director Joan Peters, a media and entertainment lawyer, received just under
$14.8 million in production grants, consultancy fees, travel grants and
assorted transactions with Screen Australia.”
The question of whether or not it
is appropriate for members of the Screen Australia Board to continually vote
large sums of money to themselves and their associates needs to be
debated.
Why is there no debate?
Is it because this is an elephant
in the room that filmmakers dare not speak of in public for fear of
retribution?
Given the obvious dangers inherent
in Screen Australia board members voting to fund each others projects, what
mechanisms does Screen Australia have in place to mitigate against the
possibility of corruption?
Are questions such as these of
concern to members of Australian Director’s Guild members? If so, has there
been any discussion, debate, about them?
Are filmmakers free to be critical
in pubic of Screen Australia without fear of retribution?
A few more paragraphs from Michael
West’s 7th March article:
“Companies associated with
director and film producer Rosemary Blight picked up $2.2 million in production
grants and travel to the Toronto Film Festival.
Payments of $1.5 million were made
to companies associated with filmmaker Rachel Perkins and for a project in
which a "close family" member of Perkins was involved.
Payments were also made to
companies associated with the former chairman of Screen Australia, Glen
Boreham, companies associated with deputy chair Deanne Weir and companies
associated with another director, Richard Keddie.”
Is the
Australian Director’s Guild free to ask, in public, the kinds of questions
implicit in Michael West’s article, without fear that its funding from Screen
Australia might be cut off?
