Crime and Pseudonym

Barry Buffier, your last sentence says it all! “Any further correspondence on this matter would not be the best use of our resources.” It’s called dialogue, Barry, debate. It’s what people engage in who have differing views in a democracy. It is not only intellectual cowardice on your part to disappear from the debate on the grounds that you are too busy, but your duty, as a public servant to engage in it!

It is understandable, I guess, that Barry Buffier feels his time resources would be wasted devoting ten minutes to explain why the Crimes Act should be invoked if a screenwriter uses a pseudonym. But why did Screen NSW feel it was necessary to get such a senior bureaucrat involved in the first place?

Hopefully Tania Chambers and the Screen NSW Board do have the time to engage in the debate! Or would doing so not be the best use of their ‘resources’ either?

When public servants don’t want to answer questions the first response is spin and, if that doesn’t work, a declaration that it would not be the best use of their resources to correspond on the matter. This is such a universally used tactic ne has to presume that I reckon there must be a public servant’s manual recommending it. If there is, could someone please send it to Wikileaks?

Miguel, I take it the Screen NSW Board has not responded to James’ article yet? Any idea if it going to comment? Dying to know if the Board, one of whose members is a distinguished screenwriter, Geoffrey Atherden, agree with Buffy Barry that screenwriters who use pseudonyms could (maybe should?) be charged under the Crimes Act? Geoffrey A? Are you reading this? Any comment?

I’m genuinely undecided whether you should or shouldn’t be allowed to ask for public funding using a pseudonym.

But in the examples you gave, I’m pretty sure Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, J K Rowling, Stephen King, George Eliot and others weren’t asking for taxpayers’ money to fund their projects.

It would be interesting to know if Banksy had government funding of Exit Through the Gift shop.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
–Phil

Beats me why James would want to use an assumed name making an application but it also beats me why Screen NSW would want to make such a big deal of it! He would have had no choice but tocome clean if his application had been successul.

I’ve known a few people who did it before they asked for ABN numbers and the sky didn’t fall in.

I did it myself one time (used an assumed name) because there was one particular person at the Film and Television Office (now Screen NSW) who I had a falling out a few years earlier and who I did not think would look at my project objectively.

For Encore readers who don’t realize, your project proposal is read by one person whose decision is then ratified by a committee made up of people who have not read your submission. If that one person is a former lover, a feminist with an ideological agenda or a guy who reckons soft-core porn is the future and they can’t see beyond their own crude tastes in film, you’re screwed.

Back in the days before Screen NSW set up its ABN police at least you could make a submission using a pseudonym and be sure that your project got a fair hearing. The time I did it, my project was knocked back but at least I know it wasn’t knocked back because this one particular person (still there, unfortunately, after all these years) wouldn’t piss on me if I was on fire.

This raises the issue that people should be able to apply for funding without fear or favour and have their work assessed without the assessor knowing who the person is because the assessor may indeed have some less than objective reason that clouds their judgement concerning the worth of the material they are assessing. This would have the additional benefit of debunking claims that funding bodies only fund their friends.
James clearly felt he had a good reason for using a pseudonym at the time.
The most important thing here really should be to focus on encouraging writers to write and not be afraid to put in projects even when they know the assessor doesn’t like them personally and I would have thought the assessors themselves would see the worth in becoming more objective in their assessments.

My reasons for wishing to submit my project under an pseudonym are neither here nor there and not relevant to my argument. Other people will have different reasons. I know of one quite well known screenwriter who specializes in hard hitting gritty stories that tend to be dark. Wishing to try his hand at a romantic comedy (‘a silly romantic comedy’ he preferred not to have his name associated with it at the outset lest his name influence the Reader(s). The project was knocked back and he ultimately decided that it was not really something he wished to pursue. No damage was done and at least he came away from the process with assurance that his name had nothing to do with the decision made.

Personally, I’d much prefer all of my projects assessed on their merits without my name (for better or for worse) influencing the Reader(s) – especially at the early stage. Perhaps this should be an option open to those who wish to pursue it. If they are successful they will clearly then have to let Screen NSW know who they are for contractual reasons but, at the same time, may wish Screen NSW to keep their name secret for the time being.

As the writer above,whose pseudonymous name is ‘Pseudonym’ says, the option of not revealing who you are would provide some protection for those who feel, rightly or wrongly, that particular Readers at Screen NSW may be biased against them.

I agree with Anonymous and James that anonymous applications should be an option.

I feel like a real coward not putting my name to this but I have felt the hot breath of bureaucratic retribution on my neck for having gone into battle with a Reader whose incompetence would have been obvious to Blind Freddy or anyone who bothered to google her.

I have had good experiences as well but I really would rather not take the risk, especially since its not possible to talk with anyone at the funding bodies about you projects or their assessments of them.

The only thing I would add is that knowing who is attached to your film project is a major influence on your ability to get funding.

A film with big name stars and experienced writers, producers and crew attached is definitely easier to fund than an untested, first-time filmmaker.

Your name is important – because it represents your reputation.

I don’t know anyone that would give money to an anonymous business venture (film or otherwise). That’s asking a level of risk that not too many investors would be comfortable with.

Thanks again for the post.

It speaks volumes that we’re still thinking about the issue many days after the original article.
–Phil

There is a clear failure of logic in the bureaucracy here: the Crimes Act says “to dishonestly make a false statement with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage.” But James R was not going to gain a financial advantage by using a pseudonym; the advantage was to have been gained by his creative efforts. It doesn’t matter what his by-line says, it’s still tghe same person. So it isn’t fraudulent. What a silly bloody affair.

Phi, in the case of a successful application, a filmmaker would HAVE to enter into a contract with Screen NSW and would HAVE to do so in his or her name. This is the point at which a pseudonym will not suffice. Up to this point (the assessment process) what harm is there in an applicant remaining anonymous? Yes, his or her name and attendant producer etc. may be an asset – in which case, include these by all means. And those who feel that they may have been pigeon-holed in a particular genre or who feel that they may not get a fair hearing (for whatever reason) let them use any name they like – up until it comes time to sign a legal contract. This seems to me to be such a non-issue, especially given the real problems that we all face – trying to figure out what films Australian audiences actually want to see and on what platform

Thanks, Andrew.

A storm in a tea-cup! For ENCORE readers interested in what Screen NSW thinks is money well spent on script development for ‘Bikini Bandits Down Under’, check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iicgYO2SNV4:

The people who made this received script development money using their own names, though if I were them I’d have been inclined to use a pseudonym!

The Australian version of ‘Bikini Bandits’ (with script development from Scree NSW) is described on Screen NSW’s website as:

“Bikini Bandits Down Under bust out of prison into a lawless land where they must take down the evil corporate and rebalance the world.”

This earlier ‘Bandits’ film contains one of the all-time great lines of modern cinema:

“Just wondering what a hottie like you still doing a virgin”

The company that produces the ‘Bikini Bandits’ franchise is ‘Fuck Hollywood Films’ headed up by Peter Grasse , whose ‘primary citizenship’ is ‘United States’.

Screen NSW, please explain!

pseudonym is fine, ok, acceptable, lovely – false abn – no no.

Have checked out ‘Bikini’ on youtube! OMG! Are we allowed to know the names of those who recommended “Bikini Bandits Down Under” for Screen NSW funding? Do they still have their jobs? Was “Bikini Bandits Down Under” assessed by one of Screen NSW’s American assessors? Or does Buffier’s Law of Transparency apply here: “Any further correspondence on this matter would not be the best use of our resources.”

I wrote a play for a major Sydney arts institution back in the ’90’s, under a pseudonym. It was a success financially, and the reason I did it was to fool the SMH critic at the time who had taken a dislike to me and my work. The persona I created ticked every box of addressing his prejudices, and not surprisingly, this time his review was glowing. Everyone was happy, but the arts institution was not! The historical precedents I quoted mattered not to them – they were state govt bureaucrats and blockheads. It wasn’t for financial advantage, but for artistic advantage. I never regret doing it.

I don’t know about you, but I’m dying to know the real life identity of “Barry Buffier”. It’s a fantastic pseudonym!

I’ve done it too and so have several screenwriters I know who have had run-ins with bureaucrats with glaringly obvious agendas – of a kind that I dare not mention in case I get accused of being xxxist!

There are two separate issues:

1. Whether Mr Ricketson’s behaviour was inappropriately dishonest.
2. The decision process of Australian film bureaucrats.

There is a world of difference between publishing something pseudonymously and asking for money using a fake ID. Ricketson wants to be like Austen? Fine – publish something. He wants to be (further) supported by the work of other people’s taxes? That’s something else entirely. It’s not like being Austen – or even Helen Demidenko. It’s more like ordinary credit card fraud.

Is he right to fear that the way the bureaucracy hands out taxes to let people write or make films is flawed? That perhaps he may have a reputation that might work to his disadvantage – or that others might be more in favour with the current group of officials? London to a brick. With almost no doubt at all.
Should there be a better system that (if we are going to continue to waste huge quantities of taxes collected from people with real jobs to let a small group of self-satisfied artistes indulge themselves) ensures evaluation of applications is at least untainted by personal relationships and biases? Abso-bloody-lutely.

OMG, I disagree. ‘Bikini Bandits Down Under’ is not a movie I’d want to see but so what! There’s probably a bigger audience out there for B-grade comedies in which young women in bikinis sashay around uttering inane lines of dialogue than there is for the seemingly never ending stream of Australian movies that open and close in the blink of an eye. Like it or not there are cinema goers who like these sorts of films and Australian filmmakers seem to forget this. or else, maybe, look down their noses at bikini-loving-Bogans.

Bleedingly Obvious makes the same mistake as the bureaucrats, referring to psudonym use as equivalent to credit card fraud. Say JR’s script had been approved for funding; where would the money have gone? To his psudonym? To his false ABN number? The real problem is the underlying reason for his actions – namely fear of unfair assessment in a system that seems to lack transparency. This is a genuine issue and should be explored by the industry.

I agree with Andrew. There are some real questions being raised here that really haven;t got much to do with the use of a pseudonym but are worth debating. Tania Chambers thought it was a seriousenough offence to dob James in to Barry Buffier and BB has said he doesn’t want to discuss ther matter. Given that BB has nothing to do with the film industry this is understandable but Tania dobbed James in to the Screen NSW Board too and it DOES have a lot to do with the industry. As far as I can tell the Board has expressed no opinion yet on the question of using pseudonyms. Will it do so? Will it answer any the questions that arise inthe debate going on here? Or is Mr Buffier’s comment above the last word on the subject?

Wonderful though it is that there is a healthy debate going on here – a debate that I feel sure Screen NSW will not engage in – I do wish that there was a similarly healthy debate taking place about a topic of much greater significance to us all – Baz Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby.

Is it true, as rumour has it, that Screen NSW is kicking in $20 million to assist an American studio (Warner Brothers) in the telling of an American story?

If the figure is not $20 million, what is it? If Screen NSW won’t tell us, can it please provide a cogent reason why not?

Could someone with a strong view one way or another about ‘Gatsby’ please kick off a debate more important than this one with an ENCORE opinion piece? I’ve already had my say, though few filmmakers took part in the debate that followed. If you are interested, go to:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/art.....at-gatsby/

I’m not sure if this is a palatable idea……but if someone is successfully writing a particular genre and wants to try their hand at another genre perhaps it might be good if the funding bodies could look at ways to help writers do that?
Maybe you could put two experienced writers together who work in different genres who are happy to try a collaborative venture …hopefully not to create a dreadful hybrid as a result but rather to encourage creativity and new ideas and new ways of storytelling.
After all some really good films have been written by two writers bringing their writing strengths together.

Don’t investers have the right to know who they will be investing in? Being that the investor is a government agency…it is tax payers money. As a tax payer…I don’t feel comfortable in having my tax money given to someone who is being sneaky…and to an extent…fraudulent.

This is an industry that has no transparency and no accountability. Shockingly bad investment decision’s are made with a simple shrug of the shoulders. Nepotism reigns at all the funding levels and this has evolved into a term coined as “normality”. People who have made a string of failures are given more development money while those struggling to build a career don’t even register on the radar. No wonder somebody is forced to write under a Pseudonym, if there is no accountability or transparency at the top level why should there be at the application end. They expect so much from us but hardly anything from themselves. We really are in the dog house…how did it get to this?
Maria…Don’t we have the right to know why decisions are made?…the good and especially the bad?…seeing as the money they dish out is tax payers money. As a tax payer..I don’t feel comfortable in having my tax payer money given to someone who is being sneaky and funding their “mates” project. Or somebody sitting on a development board awarding themselves development money..and to an extent…being a greedy bastard.

I’ve just read of this situation today and my first reaction is that it sounds like a script proposal for the story that is being played out right now in the middle-east… the down-trodden, poverty-stricken, vote-less masses are taking to the streets to complain about the heavy-handed, high-and-mighty, long-time corrupt, petty-government officials who look after themselves and their cronies before they take care of the real job in hand – the health of the film and TV industries for the people.
Yes it was a stupid idea to fake an ABN number – but how interesting to see such a reaction against NSW Screen officialdom and petty-fogging small-mindedness. The natives are revolting… and perhaps they have good reason. I don’t know much about Tania Chambers. She was boss of the same type of government agency in WA (ScreenWest) before going to NSW. I’m told people put the flags out but that was before my time. I can say the gang presently in power in WA are spectacularly ineffective and unhelpful – (should I use a pseudonym from now on?) – so maybe these government jobs automatically put people into some sort of lethargic, languorous, lolloping-state of ineptitude wherein they lose touch with industry needs and standards. Certainly they get paid whether they make sound, fair and reasonable decisions or not.
Why don’t we just do away with all these weird government bodies like NSW Screen, Screen Australia, ScreenWest – junk ‘em all. Let’s face it – they don’t achieve one single thing that the Film and TV Industries couldn’t achieve themselves. Not one. And they are, by their very nature, corrupt in that sense that they have, and always will, serve themselves and their mates first. And they’re such boring people, have you noticed that??
They’ll probably hang on longer than Hosni Mubarak and Nellie Gaddifi but if you keep the pressure up they’ll have to take a serious look at themselves – and ask what use they really are – to anyone.

Bikini Bandits down under…my god..we’re are in the dog house…WTF is going on with these people at funding bodies? A Heartbeat Away…Bikini Bandits down under..I mean is this what we’ve come to…are our imaginations actually this bankrupt? The rest of the world is making films like The Social Network, The Kings Speech, Biutiful(which looks like it will be amazing) and we’re pumping out this feel good tosh and B movie bollocks. It is simply embarrassing. And I think I can say with all confidence that our funding bodies have failed us, they’re riddled with nepotism and secret handshakes, all those that “suppose” to know what constitutes quality film making and quality writing have utterly no idea..none..and their vision of Australian cinema and what it could be…has become utterly demented under the weight of red tape and zero accountability.

I’m not sure what will fix all this..but staying mute and not entering public debate is driving a wedge between funding bodies and the film making community, and most importantly the audience..yeah thats right..the people who help fund all this.

Clyde The Cow – I’ve worked in a government office before years ago (yes, i know…!) and the amount of “conflict of interest” policies out there are quite voluminous and taken seriously. To assume its their ‘mates’ is a quick judgement, but in a sense I think you are right. The film industry in general is a small industry. For us applicants, producers, audience member etc to expect the assessor to not know or know of the applicant is quite naive. What this example is showing is condoning deceit on official applications for government money.

Why do people also only point fingers at the bad films? Animal Kingdom, The Loved Ones, Beneath Hill 60, The Waiting City, Red Hill, South Solitary, The Tree, Bran Nu Dae, Daybreakers, Tomorrow When The War Began – they all came out last year (and I know I’m leaving some off the list). I found them all entertaining, yet only a few of these films had good box office revenue.

So another argument to be had is, how do we get Australian audiences to watch Australian Films? Because judging by the recent box office opening weekend of films like Wasted on the Young, Griff the Invisible, The Reef …people don’t go to buy tickets. These three films are good, in particular Griff which I found absolutely beautiful, and they were funded by government agencies…so is the Agency to blame for these films not doing well at the box office? Or the Producer? Or the Distributor? Or the Audience?

It’s easy to point the finger, but there are so many variables that come into play with regards to what is a success and what is a failure.

I would also like to point out that Leon Ford (Griff) is a first time feature writer/director as well as Ben C Lucas (Wasted).

I have seen the trilogy of terror: ‘Reef’, ‘Griff’ and ‘Heartbeat’.

In fact, I might be the only sucker in this country who forked out my hard-earned to see all three films in the cinema.

They are not good. They are bad. Very bad.

In every case, the script just wasn’t ready.

Audiences are much smarter than filmmakers and funding bodies ever give them credit for…

The question of my pseudonymous application has ceased to be a matter of concern to Barry Buffier or the Screen NSW Board. What my breach of the Crimes Act has made possible for me, however, is to communicate with Mr Buffier about problems confronting the film industry as a whole. Given that Mr Buffier is concerned with “Industry and Investment” in NSW (investing in ‘Gatsby’, for example) I have suggested to him, given that we use the expression ‘film industry’ (as opposed to ‘film culture’) that he look at Screen NSW as part of the production line, the assembly line, that produces feature films for an Australian and international market.

If a assembly line is building a product that doesn’t sell, that the public doesn’t want to buy, (be it soap powder, a car or a film) what does the CEO of the company do? Bury his (or her) head in the sand and hope that the public will eventually realize what a great product it is and start buying it? Or does the CEO (in this case Mr Buffier) work his way back down the assembly line, looking closely and critically at each part of the production process in an effort to find out where the problem lies?

Take GRIFF THE INVISIBLE, for instance, the latest film off the Screen NSW assembly line. (And off the Screen Australia assembly line also, but that’s another story!) GRIFF has been given a luke warm reception by the cinema going public. It is a product the public does not wish to buy. It is a product that many people in charge of different sections of the assembly line believed the public would rush to buy. Somewhere in the assembly line there is a problem. What is it?

Why did the Screen NSW Board approve production investment in GRIFF? Was the decision to invest merely a matter of rubber-stamping a recommendation made to the Board by Chief Executive, Tania Chambers? Did Tania read the screenplay that was being recommended for production funding? Did she believe that it was sufficiently developed to go into production? Or was Tania merely putting her own rubber stamp on a decision made by others within Screen NSW? If so, who made the decision? And if it was a committee, who was on the committee? Have the members of this committee been responsible for recommending other films for production funding that have likewise resulted in a product that the public simply does not want to buy? If so, are they the best people to be sitting on this committee? Are there others who might be better suited to the job?

The names of Martin Williams and Megan Simpson-Huberman appear in the end credits for GRIFF THE INVISIBLE. Given the senior positions they hold at Screen NSW, is it fair to presume that they both read the draft of the screenplay that was recommended to the Board for production funding? Did they both write Reports about the screenplay in support of the recommendation being put to the Board? Were they glowing reports? Did Martin Williams and Megan Simpson-Huberman believe that with GRIFF Screen NSW was onto a winner? Or did they urge caution? Did one or both recommend that more work be done on the screenplay before a production investment was made? If so, why did the Board ignore their advice?

Only by asking questions such as these will Mr Buffier be able to identify where the problem lies not only with GRIFF THE INVISIBLE but with all Screen NSW feature films (and there are too many of them!) that fail to capture the imaginations of the Australian cinema-going public for which they have been made. Only by asking such questions can errors be corrected so that we are not, in a year’s time, asking why the latest crop of films supported by Screen NSW production investment have failed at the box office.

An independent assessment of Screen NSW’s assessment processes and production funding decisions cannot, of course, be conducted by anyone closely associated with Screen NSW who has a vested interest in the outcome.

It is to be hoped that the new Minister for the Arts in NSW will recognize that there is a problem to be dealt with and instruct Mr Buffier to undertake a review along the lines being suggested here.

Once again, a very good read for Encore readers. Thanks James for another great subject worth debating. Oh sorry, it’s not really a debate though is it as the people of our funding bodies don’t like to make comment, answer questions or open their books for us to look over… No, our funding bodies are a closed world who only work for who is going to take them to the ball.

Why in the World would our screen industry want it any other way? Why? because why wouldn’t they?? They answer to nobody!

As always “Evil is when good men do nothing”!!!! At least you’re giving it a crack James. Good job.

ps – RIP ESBEN STORM!!!!! 🙁

Maria…I’ve worked in this industry long enough to know that the current system we have the funding programs that lead to nowhere, the endless lectures we get from the funding bodies that film is a “Collaborative medium” (how patronizing is that to tell a film maker?Like we are children and have no idea of the art form that we engage in) and sometimes we get it wrong..etc etc, are doing serious and lasting damage to an industry in crisis. Yes we made some good films last year, but we need to build on that, over a series of years and it can be done. We just need a radical development overhaul. At the end of the day something is really rotten in Denmark, everybody is talking about it and the fact of the matter is we cannot continue to go down the same path….its utterly insane….the system we have..a few people giving the nod to this and that, with little transparency and little accountability. A Heartbeat Away is a shocking example of how rotten things have gotten..it simply is shocking..that in this day and age, with the variant tastes of the cinema going public, with the rest of the world making some amazing cinema, that we produce this film and it just utterly bombs…I mean the reviews aren’t bad…they are the stuff of nightmares. I mean its gotten to the point now as a film maker in this country that you nearly feel embarrassed to mention your craft, because you are met with the enormous volley of OZ films are shit routine..
We need experience at the funding level…but when this experience translates into blatant unchecked nepotism and funding decisions that SCREAM of blinkered incompetence something needs to be done about the protocols for telling Producers, “You’re just not ready..we have some issues with the script..we’re stopping funding”..don’t plod on ahead and plunge money that could be better off spent on funding ten careers. There is a generation of filmmakers who are turning up on the radar and they have no trust, faith or sense of connection to the industry, because they simple see it as full of red-tape and dysfunctional…
who could blame them.

Just look at the roll call of names of people involved in ‘Griff the Invisible’ and you can see one of the problems we are up against . Scott Meek, one of the producers of the film, was a bureaucrat at the Film Finance Corporation when ‘Griff the Invisible’ was given the green light at the FFC. Jan Chapman gets a green light for anything she’s involved with regardless of its quality because she made a couple of good films once and she can go on making crap films till the day she dies because she is a member of the cosy club that has become our sad excuse for an industry. Mathew Dabner was the script editor on ‘Griff the Invisible’ and just look at his track record! He was co-writer on ‘The Square’ – a dreadful screenplay – but Dabner (a Screen Australia assessor) will go on being treated as though he knows what he is doing regardless of evidence that he does not. And getting script development money from the same organization that employs him to decide who gets script development money! But we shouldn’t be too hard on Dabner since he is not the only Screen Australia employee getting funds from his/her employer! Then there’s Martin Williams who has been at Screen NSW forever and seems to be a permanent fixture. Excuse me, but what has Mr Williams done in any field of filmmaking to earn him the right to be giving a green light to one lousy Screen NSW film after another and still keep his job? Did he really think that Australian audiences were so stupid that they’d want to see crap like ‘Griff the Invisible’. As for Megan Simpson-Huberman, she made a film once but I guess it must have opened and closed in a week because I never saw it. Maybe she knows a good script when she sees one but was home sick when the vote was taken on ‘Griff the Invisible’.

Well put Duncan M…I mean look at this shocking situation. When its spelled out like this. Script assessors and editors working at Screen Australia, Producers green-lighting their own projects, its just a massive love in and makes you wonder why you’d even try bothering to apply for anything at these agencies, you’re screwed from the get go, its not worth the effort to even apply for funding..Screen Australia asks us to act in good faith when dealing with them..seems that clause is just one way traffic. There is a growing level of discontent out there amongst film makers who are beginning to realize the odds are just stacked against them and that simply giving up on chasing funding is not only the path forward but is the best thing you can do for your mental health. We have a crisis of faith in this industry and when the talent stops thinking they have a chance..apathy reigns and good ideas go out the window.

Great debate. What most filmmakers don’t understand too is the fact that those of us who have been granted funding and THEN screwed to the wall have even worse horror stories to tell. Unfortunately we don’t have an avenue to vent these stories into the main stream to help educate other filmmakers doing BUSINESS with Screen Australia so that they don’t get raped as well.

The system is wrong, the people are committing fraud… My story is worth a movie on its own. One thing I have been privy too purely based on the fact that I will use my own name on these forums is that I’m not alone… I have 15 known complaints by FUNDED filmmakers who got done over by this system that are all well known for breaking the mould, non boysclub members of this industry. Will SA ever answer to us as filmmakers?? No. Why should they. Getting away with Murder means they keep their job.

I have written to Harley, Arts Minister, Local Member, Crime Commission… For some reason it always gets handled by internal SA employee’s.

Chris Fitchett was someone I made a complaint too about someone known in SA. The investigation went in and out as quick as 60 seconds. The person I made a complaint about then became the person investigating HIMSELF!!!!!!! Chris Left and now has a $7m flop to keep him warm at night.

Who gives $7m to a new writer, new director????? They could at least start with a smaller budget film with good people around them to PROVE themselves first? Isn’t that what all of these people INSIDE SA tell us is essential?

Anyway, I make U.S films now because I got sick of the lack of respect, lack of honor, lack of judgement, lack of professionalism, lack of care, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, lack of support, lack of responsibility, lack of heart, and mostly the lack of talent in our so called Government funding club.

I have been pushing this point for years but it’s only now that filmmakers are seeing that I wasn’t joking about these people.

To be a part of something you need to know something. To know something doesn’t mean you’re a part of it… It just means nothing!!

Unfortunately now… Screen Australia just means nothing!

Wow..that sounds like a Philip K Dick novel or Kafka at least. I know at least another ten film makers who are all the same, the thing is there is a quiet revolution going on, its just a matter of time until that Maverick comes along and makes something DIY and is a huge success and lets it all out about he/she could never get funding was knocked back, no support and funding bodies are forced to question their methods or at the very least their ability to administer our funds..I mean in any other industry there would be an inquiry and heads would roll, but the arts seems to be able to be given room to work its own mess out. Well the mess has become so rotten it has eroded the very foundation of the industry it is supposed to support. People are walking away from this industry in droves, going overseas, or just setting up other careers, I mean the brain drain is staggering..meanwhile agencies keep telling us how great things are going and how much they are funding and how generous they are with OUR money..it really is madness. I mean who likes to whinge and say everything is stuffed…nobody…but now…its really gotten to the point of ridiculous. A first time director, a first time writer and an ex-CEO of the Australian Film Commission given $7-8million to produce a cliche’d telemovie. We are utterly rooted!

I agree with you all about A Heartbeat Away, there is no denying that that is a bad film. Griff, however, I found a beautiful and interesting piece….and the reviews pretty much say the same (we some negative here and there). So, what some posters above me are saying, it comes down to taste.

And Clyde, I totally appreciate where you are coming from, but to say that the world is making ‘amazing cinema’ – it’s like you’re saying that only Australian’s make bad films…when, we all know that stinkers are made everywhere!

The world is making some amazing cinema and stinkers are around everywhere, we can make some amazing films here in Australia, I thought the Animal Kingdom was a brilliant film, a great example of where we can head, not just in genre, but with cinematic style. The frustrating thing is that we have so much creative potential but we rob ourselves of this potential via corrupt and shocking nepotism so tightly woven into the industry that what we produce consistently is average, Producers wanting to get paid so they rush projects into production…and years of this has just killed any local audience respect, a whole generation is growing up with the mantra “Australian Films Are Crap” and its the continued greenlighting of substandard expensive flops like A Heartbeat Away, The Tender Hook for no reason other than nepotism and secret handshakes..followed through with zero accountability. Nobody is accountable for these decisions…nobody..and this just needs to change. $7Million could have helped a multitude of careers and projects and in this day and age we should be able to say at the script level “Thats a Stinker”..in this case it was obvious..so why did it get made?

Ranting on this blog is great to some degree, but if we want real and lasting change all those that dream of a better, sustainable and productive film/tv industry need to put political pressure in the right places, it can be done, we do live in a democracy and these “informed decision makers” are latched to the chain of government, this is where we need to direct the heat and introduce protocols of accountability. Using Social Media in the correct way can really apply some pressure combined with chasing the correct government avenues. This crap needs to stop!! They’re here to support us, not the other way around.

Thre’s a huge amount of passion and frustration in this thread. Having been trying to get feature films made for years, I get it as much as anyone. It is hard, very hard to get a production up. The industry can be seen, indeed,as a very small club and current policies appear designed to make it smaller. Bigger chunks of money for fewer people on the basis that there is a need to underpin sustainable businesses rather than scatter gun small amounts of money that keep us all just alive but not really developing. That is a valid policy; the negative view is that it does not allow any growth or the introduction of new people unless they go through the filter of the “club” members. And those gatekeepers will, by definition, look after their own interests first. The other view is that it is valid to suggest it is not a “club” but companies that have established themselves over time and have a track record to prove viability, There is an element of reason in both. Who wouldn’t like to have a Sue Chapman or Emile Sherman supporting their project? They have proven they can do it. But why would the established companies take someone else’s project when they have plenty of their own?

The debate should be more about public policy and not about James Ricketson’s inablity to get anyone to invest in his projects. And, by the way, masquerading as someone else is NOT reasonable. It is illegal and should be. If you cannot stand behind your own name, why should anyone trust you, let alone invest money in you? This isn’t about pen names or artistic personae, it is about deceiving the funding body.

But let us get past the squabbling on personal pet projects and who is mates with whom and ask, “How do we build an industry in Australia rather than just a group of grumbling individuals who think the system is corrupt because their personal projects didn’t get up?” An industry cannot be sustained on government handouts, no matter how big they are. Film and television are not welfare functions. Screen Australia and the state agencies struggle with a very small amount of investment money. I would love to get some more. Wouldn’t we all? (They keep saying “no” to our feature films too, by the way). But that is just seagulls fighting over crumbs. It is not the foundation of industry. To do that, we have to make profitable films that attract private investors and return money to them. Most films don’t do that. Anwhere. Screen Australia has publicly declared its support for High Concept stories. They are the ones that people pay to see. For us to grow as an industry we have to do better. We can find the stories and make the films, but there has to be a focus on commercial, audience appealing films rather than indulgent drama that nobody but the film maker and his or her friends and family want to watch. Get over this personal crusade. Write good scripts (without being paid by Screen Australia or anyone else) Focus on the business part of the Entertainment business. I know of one investor who has $50million available for family movies and he has just been sent, in his words, a lot of crap. Let’s stop whinging about the nasty public servants who won’t give you any money and start creating projects that investors cannot resist.

My film Lachlan Macquarie: The Father of Australia was the recipient of a production grant of $150,00.

I would actually like to see the government revamp its film funding along the lines of its government business enterprises. Australia Post, for instance, is completely owned by the government (us), yet it is totally self-funded and pays an annual dividend back to the state from its profits.

While the film industry is closer to dabbling in the stock market or playing the pokies than a business with measurable prospects, a self-sustaining film industry is a very worthy goal. At the moment government funding is like overseas aid without the goodwill.

We seem to have a bloated, arty farty organisation apparently without any commercial knowledge or sensibilities, sitting on its hands and operating in a vacuum, while experienced independent producers who do have a clue are valiantly scrambling for cash and resources and actually trying to make films that, if supported, would have a reasonable chance of finding an audience.

A properly run government film organisation would lead, support and partner these people instead of staying behind the battle lines and watching them go over the trenches without artillery support.

Rant over.

Stuart- very well put..I agree the debate needs to be about public policy and at the same time systems of accountability need to be put into place to insure that the funding bodies that have been set up to “support filmmakers” maintain a level of faith…at the moment faith in the informed decision making of the funding bodies and the projects they’re are funding is at an all time low….there is no faith..none (If I was Minister for the Arts I would sack anybody associated with green lighting A Heartbeat Away, or demote their level of responsibility.) All this this combined with an utter lack of respect and faith from the Australian cinema a going public. The industry is a very small club and current policies are failing to convince filmmakers and the public that it is anything but. The cliche riddled A Heartbeat Away, a $7million dollar musical turkey, that should never been made, Produced by an ex CEO of the Australian Film Commission broke every rule in the book and received funding..disaster projects like this do nothing to convince those outside waiting in the cold, that the industry isn’t anything other than clique with cynical filmmaking at its core masquerading as “high concept” or ” feel good ” nonsense.
Stories are coming thick and fast about nepotism and corruption at the funding level and you don’t have to daisy chain the evidence too hard when funding decisions are made by various funding bodies to see this kind of nepotism on graphic display. People sitting on the development boards getting grants is utterly wrong, you are either one or the other, advising on development or get in line and beg like the rest of us, you cannot and should not be both. Why anybody thinks this is okay, is beyond me, especially when those receiving funding blame their last produced and poorly received film on their release date colliding with the federal election and are then given a grant to development something else…ON WHAT GROUNDS? That you can deliver something to the screen? So can a hundred others who are busting for the chance…what shocking nepotistic greed!!
This happens time and time again, year in and year out, so to suggest that a club or a clique doesn’t exist, or that its a figment of rejected and paranoid imaginations, is insulting and just rubs salt in the wound. But you are right Stuart in asking this very important question:
“How do we build an industry in Australia?”
There is a myriad of roads to travel and the ones that lead nowhere begin with handing out large sums of money to teams with crap projects
We need better scripts, with great concepts from screenwriters able to produce innovative screenplays that respect the craft of writing. We need to build these hothouses of creativity and nurture the process of creation.
Its not about grumbling because your project didn’t get up, people have rightly loss faith in the government funding system. I’ve given up on applying for funding, it really is so filled with absurd criteria and nepotism I walked away from it and I’m now slowly building pathways into the private sector to fund my own work. Its not easy but it beats wasting your life filling our funding forms that have the funds already allocated to those in the clubhouse, way before you’ve even licked a stamp.

Stuart, I know of several filmmakers including myself that actually got funding but who have been unjustly treated by Screen Australia for standing up to some of the immoral things that happened by them with this funding. It’s not about people bitching because they can’t get their money but it’s about how money is used, who gets that money, what accountability SA have to those who ARE funded and who ARE NOT!

In regard to your comment about James, I beg to differ. James is someone who has done so much to get not just this case heard but on other occassions other issues relating to the non commitment of Screen Australia to stamp out the crap happening internally there. If it wasn’t for people like James then others that have never dealt with Screen Australia would never know what goes on behind those closed doors.

Also, it’s only against the law if he accepted money under a different name. He uses a “pseudonym” so to speak which happens to be one of the most used functions of Actors, writers, directors and producers around the world. If you GOOGLE Stage names or artist pseudonym’s you’d be able to see that it’s more about who DOESNT use their real name under the art banner.

Also don’t forget that it was James who started this post with a great case to open up this discussion.

Oh dear, Stuart Scowcroft, here we go again!

You write, Stuart, “The debate should be more about public policy and not about James Ricketson’s inablity to get anyone to invest in his projects.”

When have I ever, here on ENCORE or anywhere else, complained about not getting anyone to invest in my projects? Please, just one example, Stuart?

This is the kind of smear tactic used by the funding bodies and you should not, as a filmmaker, be engaging in it. I have not and will not use a public forum such as this to engage in debate about my own projects that should, quite appropriately, be had with the funding bodies only.

If there is one issue that unites most of the comments in this particular discussion (indeed, most ENCORE online debates) , it is the lack of accountability and transparency on the part of our film funding bodies.

For anyone who might be interested I have included here, in four episodes, an account of my attempt to get some answers to questions from Screen Australia for an article I wished to write about the Australian Film Industry. These ‘episodes’ comprise the text of a letter sent to Simon Crean on 29th. March. The letter, the ‘episodes’, speak for themselves:

Episode One

Dear Minister (Simon Crean)

On 21st. March 2011 I sent a letter to Ruth Harley (CEO) and Fiona Cameron (Chief Operating Officer) in which I requested that they answer a few questions for an article I am writing about the implications, for the film industry, of a massive investment of Australian tax-payer’s money in ‘The Great Gatsby’, should the film be produced in Australia.

Yesterday I received the following email from Fiona Cameron – currently CEO:

“Dear James,

Thank you for your interview request which Screen Australia declines.

You will note that today’s Australian carries an opinion piece that addresses many of these issues. I have attached this article for your information.

To be clear, Screen Australia will not contribute to an interview either verbally or in writing.

Regards,

Fiona Cameron
Chief Operating Officer
Screen Australia”

I read Fiona’s Opinion piece in the Australia and found that it does not answer one of the questions I asked in my letter of 21`st. March. Fiona’s refusal to answer questions is symptomatic of the lack of transparency and accountability at Screen Australia since Ruth Harley became CEO.

In my capacity as a journalist I have been trying for 17 months now to get a few answers to questions from senior management at Screen Australia. I have included, below, an abbreviated record of my attempts. I believe that this record speaks for itself of a problem within Screen Australia that you need to address.

My attempt to get answers to a few questions begins in Nov. 2009. Screen Australia is close to one year old. I want to write an article. I seek an interview with Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman – Head of Film Development. Ms Coleman tells me that all interview requests made to Screen Australia must go through Victoria Buchan of The Lantern Group.

Email to Victorian Buchan, 13th Nov, 2009

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

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

Email from Victorian Buchan, 16th Nov 2009

Victoria Buchan: 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.

JR: I will write my article ‘on spec’… If Ruth and Martha … 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 do not receive a response to this last email.

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 Opinion pieces from freelance journalists and only accepts articles written ‘on spec’.

Email to Victoria Buchan, 27th Nov, 2009

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?

I receive no response to this email.

Email to Victoria Buchan, 30th Nov, 2009

JR: Do Ruth Harley and Martha Coleman agree, in principle, to being interviewed for my article? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.

Email from Victoria Buchan, 1st Dec, 2009

VB: At this point they are not available.

Email to Victoria Buchan ,2nd Dec 2009

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.

To be continued…

Episode Two

Email to Martha Coleman. 4th Dec 2009

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.”

Email to Martha Coleman, 11th Dec

JR: Following on from my email of Friday 4th. Dec. 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.

I persisted with my emails and letters but these were ignored until 6 weeks later, 29th Jan 2010 when Fiona Cameron, Chief Operating Officer, responded with:

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.

Email to Fiona Cameron, 1st Feb 2010

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?

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

This is, as you are aware, factually incorrect – as even a cursory glance at my attempts to communicate with Ruth, Martha and Ross (Mathews) vis a vis my interview request would reveal. It is the total lack of dialogue with Ruth, Martha and Ross (Mathews) 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

FC: 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.

Email to Fiona Cameron, 1st Feb 2010

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

Email from Fiona Cameron, 1st Feb 2010

FC: 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.

Email to Fiona Cameron, 1st Feb 2010

JR: 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 Mathews 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

FC: 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.

To be continued…

Episode Three

Email to Fiona Cameron 2nd Feb 2010

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

Letter to Glen Boreham and Members of 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 … The current regime of Screen Australia personnel is the most recalcitrant I have ever encountered in my close to 40 years in the industry.

…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 publically 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.

Letter to Glen Boreham, Chair, Screen Australia Board, 24th Feb 2010

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.

Email to Ruth Harley, 1st 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 Boreham’s that is demonstrably false if anyone bothered to check with the facts.

Letter to the Hon Peter Garrett 2nd March 2010

JR: Following on from my letters of 3rd and 24th. Feb. Clearly, an interview with you is not possible. Nor with Chair Glen Boreham or any member of the Screen Australia Board. Nor with CEO Ruth Harley, Martha Coleman or any senior executive within the organization….So much for dialogue, transparency and accountability!

Your secretary’s informing me that you would be unavailable for an interview came after you had received Glen Boreham’s letter of 17th. Feb in which he wrote, ““It is clear that you wish to use such an interview to canvass the same issues which have been the subject of the extensive and unhappy correspondence referred to above.” You would have had no reason to doubt the veracity of Glen’s statement – despite its being demonstrably false. How was it that Glen made the presumption that he did; that it was so ‘clear’ to him? Who made it ‘clear’ to him? Was it Ruth Harley or Martha Coleman? …

Either Ruth or Martha (or both) have, it seems, deliberately set out to mislead Glen regarding my interview requests. Does this matter? After all, this is just a filmmaker wishing to write an article about the film industry! Not of great consequence. Perhaps, but it is the dynamic in operation here that should be of concern to you. How will you ever know what actually goes on within Screen Australia if you cannot rely on the Chair of the Board to give you accurate information? And how can Glen provide you with accurate information if Ruth and Martha withhold information from him and the Board, or ‘spin’ the facts as they have in the matter of my interview requests?

When we were both young (quite some time ago now, Peter!) the word ‘spin’ did not exist in the context it does today. We used the word ‘lie’. ‘Spin’ takes the sting out of lying – a mode of relating to the public that was once considered inappropriate in politicians and senior bureaucrats who are, after all, public servants. In this day and age bureaucrats can write whatever nonsense they choose (if they choose to write at all!) in the sure knowledge that no-one further up the bureaucratic chain of command (right up to ministerial level) is going to be concerned. And, if the shit hits the fan (as it invariably does when transparency and accountability are abandoned) no-one at any level of the bureaucracy is held responsible. A sorry state of affairs in all realms of public life, in this instance manifested in the peak body of the Australian film industry – a ship with no captain at the helm or, to be more precise, no captain prepared to take responsibility for the ship.

To be continued…

Episode Four

After half a dozen letters to Peter Garrett, not one of which receives a response, I was left with no choice but to give up on my quest for find someone, anyone, within Screen Australia to answer a few simple questions. A year later, however, (eternal optimist or masochist, I am not sure which!) I decide to have anther crack at seeing if the powers that be will answer a few questions:

I start my letter of 21st. March to Ruth Harley, Fiona Cameron and Tania Chamber thus:

Dear Ruth, Fiona and Tania

I will be writing a follow up article to the one I had published re ‘Gatsby’ in THE PUNCH a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps you read it and the comments that followed? In the event that you did not, you can find my article at:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/art.....at-gatsby/
As you will be aware there is a great deal of concern within the industry regarding the ramifications of ‘The Great Gatsby’ being accepted, for tax purposes, as an “Australian film’. In accordance with the logic being applied by both Screen Australia and Screen NSW, Roman Polanski’s ‘Chinatown’ is a Polish film. And Sam Mendes’ ‘American Beauty’ is a British film. And Miloš Forman’s ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest’ is a Czechoslovakian film and so on. Indeed, if I were to acquire the rights to the latest American best seller – a contemporary western thriller, say, set in the Badlands of Dakota but to be shot in outback Australia, it would qualify as an Australian film if I were writer/director – even if a substantial part of the film’s budget (in the tens of millions) were to go to the three hottest stars in Hollywood. Other than providing a few months work for Australian crews, and support roles for Australian actors, what advantages would accrue to either our own industry (or film culture) or to one of the major investors in the film – the Australian tax-payer?”

I ended my letter thus:

“It is difficult for me and my fellow filmmakers to see in what way ‘Gatsby’ will assist in the establishment of a sustainable industry. It could be argued that a $40+ million investment in what is essentially American film is encouraging boom and bust production cycles that place film crews in the invidious position of wanting desperately for ‘Gatsby’ to be produced in Australia because 4 $10 million films wont be made, or 8 $5 million films – or however the Australian tax-payer’s $40+ million might be sliced up.

Could the three of you please explain, not just to me and the film industry, but to the general public, the tax-payers of NSW and Australia, just what the benefits are, culturally and financially, of ‘Gatsby’ being made in Australia?

On 28th. March 2011 I received the following email from Fiona Cameron:
Dear James,

Thank you for your interview request which Screen Australia declines.

You will note that today’s Australian carries an opinion piece that addresses many of these issues. I have attached this article for your information.

To be clear, Screen Australia will not contribute to an interview either verbally or in writing.

Regards,

Fiona Cameron

Mr Crean, if you believe it important that senior management at Screen Australia and the Screen Australia Board adhere to the highest standards when it comes to transparency and accountability, please take a personal interest in what is taking place within Screen Australia with a view to rectifying the problems that riddle the organization – of which those implicit in this letter are but one manifestation.”

best wishes

Experience suggests that Simon Crean will refer my letter back to Fiona Cameron, who will respond on his behalf. I hope that this is not the case and that someone within Mr Crean’s office will respond appropriately and not with spin. It is to be hoped that whoever this person might be, presumably advising Mr. Crean, will be aware of the comments being made on this and other sites on the internet and that it will be apparent that perhaps, just perhaps, the presence of so much smoke indicates that there might be a fire that needs to be attended to.

Dear James,

Thank you for putting so much effort into this piece and so much time over the past year to get a few very simple questions answered. I too have attempted on at least 40 occasions to get simple answers from the very same people for my $2Million funded film SALUTE. Three years later and still nothing.

This has become a joke and I feel that management, the board, the ceo and the politics of such a huge “SCAM” has become so obvious and so qualified that it seems the industry that Screen Australia represents no longer has the people inside this special club to do what Tax Payers are paying them to do.

In a time that petrol prices, grocery prices, carbon taxes etc all make our life almost un-livable, as if anyone involved in this scam will open the gates to criticism. There is a moment in time that all things ugly come to the surface and by that time all those involved have scurried under a rock..

I just can’t believe that journalists across the Nation aren’t jumping all over this story as it seems it’s either accepted as “what screen australia do” or there is other fears for networks, publishers etc that Screen Australia being a mob based government department it could cause issues with editors etc.

That being said, the world we live in today shows me that people that can’t or won’t answer simple democratic questions on policy are those that hide behind a policy built especially for them. In a word, it’s corruption!

The beacon of hope is that it’s becoming very well known that this government cover up is real and they’re scared. If they didn’t fear the question, they would have no problem giving an answer.

I think it’s best to let the mouse poke his head out of the hole and then the tax payer wait with a big cleaver, chopping the mouse’s head off when it finally comes out into the real world.

That time is coming. Cleavers at the ready people!!!!

Gold stars for being persistent James, although not much surprises me here. I suppose what I’d like to see is Martha Coleman explain how she arrived at thinking that A Heartbeat Away was prudent and informed decision making, well at least a prudent investment of our money, when utterly nothing in terms of sound logic and informed decision making can be seen on display…first time Director, first time screenwriter and I suppose the only feather in the cap of this turkey was an ex-CEO of the AFC steering the ship.
Yeah that’s right…giving a truckload money to an ex-CEO of the AFC (even he has an unconvincing track record as a filmmaker) for a production that breaks every rule in the book..is simply wrong.
I mean this is an opportunity for Screen Australia to be accountable, transparent, devoid of the usual glazed eyed look of “we got it wrong”, which really isn’t an excuse and simply wouldn’t stand up in any corporate boardroom. How many bites at the cherry do you get with these projects? What can be learnt from this disaster? I honestly think social media could play a part in helping Screen Australia make informed decisions and maybe carry the workload and the blame if it flops and the adulation if it succeeds.
People crowd source for money to invest, why not crowd source for an opinion on potential productions? Systems could be set in place for this to function, beats leaving these “informed decisions” in the hands of a few, who don’t seem willing to share how they arrived at such an obviously flawed and bad decision. They will say “Hindsight is a lovely thing”..well it doesn’t apply here..informed foresight is the key and this is a film that most could have predicted that in this day and age would have bombed.Why can’t we know? Or are we just waiting for the debate to die away and simply sweep it under the rug of indifference? And in turn..learn nothing.

James, you’re writing an article on ‘spec’ with no publisher attached with an obvious bias opinion against them. Do you honestly believe they would want to be inteviewed by you? no offense, but just do the math there. 🙂

Maria, whoever you might be(1?), please point out to me wherein lies my ‘obvious bias’? Unless, that is, persistently trying to get bureaucrats to answer questions is evidence of same. Compare Screen Australia’s response to my questions about ‘The Great Gatsby’ with that of Barry Buffier – from whom I received a letter today:

“Dear Mr Ricketson

Thank you for your letter of 21 March and email of the following day relating to the NSW Government’s support for the making of ‘The Great Gatsby’ in Australia.

In 2010 the NSW Government committed an additional $20 million into the NSW Film Fund to attract large scale production to NSW at a time when the industry faced serious difficulties as a result of the exchange rate. The media announcement (attached) recognized that both local and international productions are vital to the NSW screen industry. The fund is managed by the Investment Attraction Branch of Industry and Investment to support investment, jobs and industry development in NSW.

The Fund has supported a diverse range of ten international and local projects including ‘Tomorrow When the War Began’, ‘Walking with Dinosaurs’ and ‘Crownies’, as well as ‘The Great Gatsby’ The projects resulted in over $800 million in direct expenditure and over 2000 jobs in NSW.

Films supported in the past have generally achieved high worldwide or local box office: ‘Wolverine’ (US$375m worldwide), ‘Australia’ ($37.6 m Australian box office, US$211 m worldwide), ‘Mao’s Last Dancer ($15.5m Australian box office), ‘Tomorrow When the War Began’ ($13.5 m Australian box office), ‘Superman Returns’ (US$390m worldwide box office).

As a production attraction fund the NSW Film Fund does not require an Australian cultural content test. Projects are assessed on the basis of the skilled employment, investment, skills enhancement and innovation they attract or support in NSW.

I&I NSW does not take equity in projects and under the guidelines the Department does not make assessments about the projected commercial return. We rely on the studios or other backers who contribute the bulk of the finance for the films to make that assessment, and we take into account the track record of the producers/directors involved. This is consistent with production attraction incentives provided by other jurisdictions.

Attracting major international projects to NSW allows us to maintain our world class infrastructure of studios and post/digital/visual effects facilities and provides an opportunity for performers, heads of departments and other crew to work on a large scale production. Further, it benefits the industry to have internationally renowned Australian directors producing films on the scale of ‘The Great Gatsby’.

I believe this reply addresses the maters you have raised and, accordingly, your invitation to be interview is declined.

yours sincerely

Barry Buffier
Deputy Director General State & Regional Development and Tourism Division”

This is a perfectly reasonable response and one that does, insofar as Screen NSW is concerned, answer my questions. Why couldn’t Screen Australia respond in the same spirit? Mr Buffier may well have felt that I had an ‘obvious bias’ but that did not prevent him from doing his job (and doing it well, I think) as a public servant.

Many thanks, Br Buffier.

haha, i’m a struggling filmmaker too James – don’t get paranoid!!

I’m just being the ‘devils advocate’ here…just put yourself in their shoes with ‘their way of thinking’.

Maria, I had guessed that you might work for Screen Australia since one of the reasons given to me for not allowing an interview to take place was the organization’s perception of my bias!

I don’t think you will find bias in any article I have written but even if I did have a bias, would this be a good reason NOT to be interviewed by me? Not to answer questions? Think of the ramifications of public servants NOT answering questions, NOT being available to be interviewed on the grounds that the interviewer/questioner had a bias! The ultimate ‘Get-Out-of-Jail-Free’ card for bureaucrats!

Part of a journalist’s job is put hi/her prejudices, preconceptions, biases to one side when writing an article and journalists should, as with bureaucrats, be accountable not just for what they write but for what they choose to exclude in an article.

We’ve built something, with our own money, that isn’t accountable and controls to some degree the level and quality of our national cinematic creativity. We can’t get any feedback from Screen Australia on the disaster on A Heartbeat Away, nothing on The Great Gatsby and we’re just supposed to sit back and think that this whole industry is a level playing field and that real talent might get a chance to actually evolve beyond the nepotism pond. After a while you study the blueprint for progress and slowly begin to realize its a plan that fits a certain kind of networker…and the craft of actual filmmaking figures somewhere, remotely, in the distant background of all this mess we’ve made.
We can only blame ourselves really.

Doug, I agree, we have only ourselves to blame, collectively, if we do not stand up and fight for the industry we so passionately believe in.

Having said that, I do not believe that the constant litany of complaints to be found here on the Encore website is going to result in any kind of meaningful change.

Last week I wrote the following to Ruth Harley, Fiona Cameron and Martha Coleman at Screen Australia. It speaks for itself of what I believe is one way for us, as an industry, to find solutions to the problems confronting us:

Dear Ruth, Fiona and Martha

I imagine that you must all read Encore Magazine online and other publications in which views about Australian film are aired – both from an ‘industry’ and a ‘cultural’ perspective. You will be aware from what you read that there are many filmmakers (producers, directors, screenwriters, technicians etc.) with grave concerns about the way in which the industry is currently being run and the direction in which it is heading. Such concerns are not, of course, unique. Our industry has confronted many problems in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.

There are many different views within the industry, of course, regarding the kinds of feature films we should be making and for what audience. One thing we must all agree on, however (unless we choose to ignore the facts) is that the majority of these features are failing to find audiences that justify the expenditure on them. So, what is the solution?

Given how integral Screen Australia is to all aspects of our industry, to the development of and investment in feature films in particular, would the three of you be prepared to engage in a dialogue with the industry structured along the lines of the ABC’s Q&A? This could involve a moderator (Andrew Urban, perhaps), three representatives of the Screen Australia senior management and three representatives of the ‘industry’. In a format very similar to Q&A questions would be taken from the floor and via video. The event would be filmed and broadcast on the internet so that all within the industry have an opportunity to hear those who run the industry answer questions pertinent to them and fellow filmmakers articulate their own suggestions as to how problems can be addressed.

What I have in mind would be a dialogue, a debate. It would not be an opportunity for anyone involved to push their particular barrow – be they a filmmaker or a bureaucrat. Part of the moderator’s job would be to see to it that anyone with a mission statement, anyone with their own personal axe to grind, is cut off very quickly. It is the big picture that such a forum would be concerned with, not any individual filmmaker’s ‘little’ picture. I would like to see the emphasis, in the forum I have in mind, on finding solutions to problems and not merely in the enumeration of problems and the apportioning of blame for mistakes that have been made. We are all in the same boat (filmmakers and bureaucrats alike) and all, in our own different ways, looking for solutions to the key problem: How do we create an industry that is as self-sustaining as possible, given the realities we all confront – acknowledging both the needs of ‘industry’ and of ‘culture’.

If you were to nominate an evening in the next few months when you were all available, it would then be possible, in consultation with the key industry bodies representing filmmakers (producers, directors, screenwriters etc.) to structure the forum in such a way as to satisfy all involved that the aims and objectives of it are to benefit the industry and not merely an opportunity for either whingeing on the part of filmmakers or defensiveness on the part of film bureaucrats.

best wishes

Good luck with that, James. I actually contacted Q&A last week to suggest they do a program about the Australian film industry, but they haven’t responded. Must be a government thing!

Good luck with that James, I highly doubt it will happen…they actually just think this is a bad patch and that the crisis everybody speaks of is a manic illusion and to admit that there are real and lasting problems in an industry riddled with nepotism and secret handshakes, would mean an admission of failure on their behalf. They honestly feel that throwing money at seasoned teams who can deliver (irrespective of the quality) is far better than nurturing innovative ideas…innovation means taking a chance(is it?)..giving cash to producers who promise a cliched package is seen as a safe bet, if it fails…just blame it on the audience..or the producer..anybody but them.

Doug, you may be right. I hope that you are not and that Ruth, Fiona and Martha will see a Q&A style debate an an opportunity to enter into a real dialogue with the industry with a view to solving problems.

No dialogue of the kind that I have described (and which it seems most within the industry wish to take place ) has occurred since the inception of Screen Australia. It is long overdue. Indeed, a think that a couple of such debates each year would be a good idea.

I think it important to stress that it must be a dialogue, a debate – not merely an opportunity for frustrated filmmakers to let off steam or for embattled bureaucrats to spout platitudes and engage in spin.

Frustration and filmmaking go hand in hand and any Q&A should be specific and address the real root cause of the problem we have at hand…how are we going to turn around the public perception of the Australian Film Industry and how are we going to blood innovative writers, directors and producers into an industry that is screaming out for innovative content, but is in fact actually drowning under the weight of nepotism, cynicism, cliched ideas and a development process covered in red tape and lacking in real and pragmatic accessibility or vision. Still..the recent Metro Screen Q&A, where Ruth Harley was present only added to the public belief that those at the top are utterly out of touch with the innovation at the bottom. The fact remains that’s its predominately impossible for the majority of filmmakers to make a living in this country doing what they do…and if that’s the case the current system will support a select few, while real innovation and talent looks for success offshore or in another industry all together. Until we can build a sustainable model…the talent drain will continue as will the narrative drought.
Its not a tough industry…its an impossible industry in crisis.

James
Be careful. You’re starting to sound like those poor souls who write endless handwritten screeds to bureaucracies with SOME BITS in capitals. AND the records of their PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE attached. No GOOD can come of it.
There’s a lot wrong with Screen OZ. Mss Harley and Cameron are the managerial equivalents of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. They stand for nothing except self-advancement and the accretion of executive authority. They combine the empty-eyed sycophancy of the apparatchik with the vain egotism of the arts bureaucrat : they’re artists too and their creative judgements more valuable than those of ordinary mortals.
However – there’s a lot wrong with Australian film making too.
You’re dissembling. You’re not there only as a journalist, but as a slighted auteur.
They’re never going to fund you again. It’s time to move on. Do something useful and let’s wipe the whole sorry mess out of the public trough.

Candid, you have chosen an interesting psuedonym!

Yes, i am a filmmaker as well as being a journalist. Yes, I am a filmmaker and also someone who cares about the industry of which I have been a part for all my adult life. If I were to retire tomororw as a filmmaker I would still care about the industry and do whatever I could to try and help it solve its recurrent problems.

I am just one of many filmmakers with a point of view that I am not afraid to express. I do not presume that my point of view is the right one. It is merely one of many. It is from the dynamic interaction of different points of view that dialogue and debate can arise that, with a bit of luck, gives rise to changes that none of us individually can achieve. Wiping the ‘whole sorry mess out of the public trough’ is not a strategy; it is an admission of defeat. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Our industry can rise again but will not if too many filmmakers adopt your attitude.

the industry is full of spoilt brats sucking on the teat of government handouts.

Its strange isn’t it..where we’ve arrived as a society. Here is a man who cares so passionately about our little cottage industry, he cares so much that he is prepared to consistently and repeatedly ask for some level of accountability and transparency with regard to investment decisions and public policy and ever so slowly he begins to be labeled a CRANK. Currently in this country there seems to be this seething tide of sycophantic neo-conservatism sweeping across all levels of society, especially the arts and obviously the film industry.. its main agenda: To character assassinate all those who wish to point out the bleeding obvious..the current system isn’t fair, it isn’t transparent, it isn’t accountable and is riddled with nepotism. This argument isn’t about filmmakers getting pissed off about not getting funding (after a while you resign yourself to never getting funding and really stop caring, I was told recently by a funding assessor “It pays to be friends with us you know”… the wish for an all smiling homogenized personality put at the forefront of the project in question and being passionate and opinionated about your work to be something to be sneered at ridiculed..whatever happened to that essence of passion that thrives off creativity?) its about trying to fix and improve what isn’t working and push aside those that seem hell bent on keeping their snouts in the public trough..snouts that have gorged themselves on public funds repeatedly..without any obvious creative merit beyond an ability to deliver a “Product”. This stinking tide of neo-conservatism has penetrated our society on such a level that we now sneer at those who put public reputation last and aspirations for a sustainable and diverse creative industry that connects with the very public that funds it…first.
Whats happening to us…and why is it happening…who gains..who loses? Ultimately in the end we all do..as apathy sets in..right across this big country of ours and we collectively resign ourselves to the mantra of “Who gives a F%$K?”

The problem is that Simon Crean has no interest in the film industry. The fact that Screen Australia backs films that no-one wants to see if not a concern for him. Without a Minister to ride shotgun over Screen Australia and with a Board that is asleep at the wheel, Harley , Cameron, Coleman, Mathews etc. can do what they like and feed Crean whatever spin they like and he’ll buy it. There’s no votes in reforming Screen Australia so Crean can afford to ignore complaints made about it. The sitaution is hopeless.

If ‘hopeless situation’ is right about Crean, the answer is not to admit defeat but to think strategically. As a tactic, as a strategy, whingeing and complaining can only go so far in terms of alerting Crean to the problems we confront as an industry and the extent to which Screen Australia is implicated in these. The easiest path for Crean is to stick with the status quo – unless, that is, the industry provides him with a blueprint of some kind for how things could be different.

Suggestion: Write to Simon Crean (S.Crean.MP@aph.gov.au) – not just to complain but with whatever you think solutions to our industry’s problems might be. Mere complaints only give support to the notion presented by ‘filmmaker’ above that we are all “spoilt brats sucking on the teat of government handouts”. In reality, most of us do a variety of jobs (often outside of the industry) most of the time to support our craft, our art.

Our industry is made up of disparate groups with different needs and desires. This is inevitable. However, if we could agree on a few key points that need to be addressed this could provide us with a starting point for a dialogue with Crean about changes that can be made.

Suggestion: Limit contracts for Screen Australia Development Managers to 3 years to avoid the perpetration of an entrenched bureaucratic class whose top priority can all too easily become maintaining a status quo of which they are a necessary part.

There are plenty of capable and experienced filmmakers (producers, directors, screenwriters, script editors) who could fill these Development Manager positions on relatively short term contracts before going back into the industry. A constant flow of filmmakers into and out of positions that involve making creative judgments about which projects to support and which to let wither on the vine has much to recommend it. Indeed, I can’t think of any problem with an approach that worked well in the 80s and for part of the 90s. Anyone who can think of objections to such an initiative (other than Development Managers intent on becoming permanent bureaucratic fixtures!), please share your thoughts with your fellow filmmakers.

The free flow of experienced filmmakers in and out of Development Manager positions, if agreed upon by the entire industry, would be easy to implement and only good could flow from it – in my opinion.

Totally agreed..and some accountability for those Development Managers when they get it so wrong as in: A Heartbeat Away (especially with an ex-CEO of the AFC at the helm) and The Tender Hook.

Everyone is judged in this industry and rightly so. Your film comes out and you live or die by the reaction to it. Yet SA takes no responsibility for the product they greenlight yet they have a profound effect on the picture – demanding changes, attaching American script editors, in fact controling the project through various blackmail techniques throughout its journey to the screen. You either comply or are refused money. SA has backed a series of films that are an embarressment to us as an industry and made us a laughing stock internationally. Ruth Harley said she would be hands on and now we see the results. In the real world you are judged, in Hollywood she and her team would have gone long ago. Its about time SA joins the real world and becomes accountable. Its time she and her management team and their assessment process is removed. Minister take action, taxpayers demand it!

Why do we need American script editors?
Don’t we value our own opinions..or has SA come to the conclusion that we need American script editors to assess our Australian voice? if that is the case..we are utterly rooted as a creative nation. If SA actually started some radical and approachable programs to fund screenwriters and their careers, we wouldn’t need American script editors giving out advice on our Australian perspective.
Why ship the money offshore..I’d do it for free…if it meant helping to reshape our industry. I wonder what changes they demanded on A Heartbeat Away? Were they made by Americans, did they improve the screenplay or make it worse?…Of course we’ll never know…because there is no accountability and the old mantra ” filmmaking is a collaborative business” will no doubt be wheeled out

I am a young filmmaker. I haven’t had a chance to suck on any teats yet. All my own work has been paid for by yours truly. I’ve yet to earn $1 as a filmmaker but I spend about 30 hours a week being one. Ive been to two forums where Ruth Harley was there and they werent debates at all but just her and other bureaucrats rabbiting on about policy and not really answering questions. A proper Q&A is just what we need. I’ll be there with a fist full of questions like why is it impossible to talk to a human bean at Screen Australia?

Is this forum going to take place in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane? Who will be representing the industry on the panel? I hope there is at least one young person there to represent the up and coming generation of filmmakers and not just old guys (no offence, old guys!) speaking on our behalf. Im at a point in my career where it could be really damaging to me to reveal who I am so with some embarrassment Im keeping my true identity anonymous.

Screen Australia response to industry debate invitation, via email:
“Dear James,

Thank you for your kind invitation to facilitate an industry debate about the status of the industry and future directions.

Screen Australia management regularly participate in public forums and industry events. We also consult formally and informally with a range of stakeholders regarding our program guidelines. You will note that the convergent television and all media guidelines have been open to comment through an exhaustive consultation process commencing last November with a question and answer session hosted by the CEO of Screen Australia. Various public meetings (hosted by Screen Australia) have also taken place in the lead up to the Government 2010 review of the Australian independent screen production sector.

Furthermore, Screen Australia’s CEO, Ruth Harley, is scheduled to participate in an Encore Q and A in early June. Our Head of Development participated in such a session earlier this year.

In this context we don’t propose to accept your invitation for further dialogue.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Cameron”

Fiona,

If you know much about the realities of being an independent filmmaker you will understand that $399 (or Early Birds) or $499 (for late Birds) is a lot of money to pay to go to an Encore Q&A to ask Ruth Harley questions! I went to two of the forums and at neither of them was there a debate about the kinds of questions that are debated here online @ Encore. It was more bureaucrats up on stage addressing a big crowd about broad policy issues but not dealing with questions such as those that are being asked here about ‘A Heartbeat Away’, for instance.

Hey, Fiona, guess what! I can’t afford to pay out any bucks at all to go to the Encore Q & A. I’m sure it will be great and that Ruth H will answer all questions but how about, for poor filmmakers like me, you and Ruth H and Martha C take part in some of the discussions or debates or whatever you want to call them that take place here in cyberspace every week. Its great to read so many different points of view but the only one missing is Screen Australias. Its like theres all these questions thrown up that only Screen Australia can answer but you keep your ideas to yourself. Seems to me that there is a whole heap of questions here about the latest crop of Australian films that have turned out to be turkeys that Screen Australia should be answering and not just ignoring.

Dear Fiona

None of the topics to be discussed at Encore’s Q&A event in June are of great relevance to me, though I would love to be in a position to ask Ruth Harley some questions. Having heard Ruth answer questions in different forums, however, I remain unconvinced that the answers she will provide will be worth $399 – even if I had $399 to spare. Like many filmmakers I cannot afford to attend this Q&A session.

The debate that we have in mind (I am not alone in this venture) is one which would cost filmmakers nothing to take part in. More importantly, it would provide a format whereby there could be real discussion, real debate rising from a particular question before moving on to the next question – much as is the case with the ABC’s Q&A. The moderator would not allow the person answering the question (be it Ruth Harley, Martha Coleman, yourself or the other three panelists) to sidestep the question asked or get away with ‘motherhood’ answers.

Clearly, there are at least four questions relating to ‘A Heartbeat Away’ that can and should be asked and which should be answered by Screen Australia – not with platitudes but substantively. And if the questions are met with spin answers the Moderator, the other panel members and the audience should be given an opportunity to insist on proper answers. This is why the debate format is so important.

The Screen Australia forums I have attended have been set up in such a way as to make it easy for Screen Australia bureaucrats to provide unsatisfactory ‘motherhood’ (or evasive) answers to one question before moving on to the next question. This is because there is no-one on stage (no Moderator) to insist on the questions being answered properly and no time or opportunity for real debate.

If I could afford to come to the Encore Q&A and I had just one question to ask it would be: “What has Screen Australia learned from its experience developing and investing in ‘A Heartbeat Away’?” It is not just Ruth’s answer I am interested in hearing. I would like to hear yours and Martha Coleman’s also. I am sure that I am not alone in this. And I am sure, whatever your answers might be, that different filmmakers would have follow-up questions to ask or observations to make – as is the case in any true dialogue; any real debate.

The tenor of your email (“we don’t propose to accept your invitation for further dialogue.”) suggests that you believe Screen Australia has paid its dues as far as engaging in a dialogue with the industry is concerned. I would suggest that a brief read through of the comments made on various discussion sites here at Encore online suggests otherwise – that you have an industry crying out for answers from Screen Australia; for dialogue; for debate.

I trust that you and Ruth and Martha may reconsider your decision not to take this opportunity to engage in a Q & A with the industry along the lines of the ABC’s program of the same name

cheers

James

Fiona Cameron’s comment is typical of SA. It’s dismissive and ignores the growing disconnect between the buracurats and the industry, it reinforces the us and them attitude and the patronising tone from public servants that have never stepped onto a film set . This isn’t about cosmetically discussing their guidelines, on their narrow terms. It is a much more fundamental debate about SA competence and the quality of their decisions, indeed whether she and others like her should remain employed there. It’s about accountability and whether SA has failed in serving the needs of the film making industry and by that I mean film makers, not distributors, lawyers, producers etc. But actual practioners. When will the government realise they have not just a problem on their hands but a dysfunctional system in crisis, run by so called experts whose only achievement is their constant spin and the waste of taxpayers money.

Well firstly, thank you to Screen Australia for acknowledging that you actually read what is being posted on here, hopefully you can see that it isn’t all just angst and rage from a dark room and is actually generating from the kind of heated and passionate debate that all well meaning and innovative creative concepts spring from.
With regard to your reply to James Ricketson’s request for an interview most of what you have written simply sidesteps the variety of issues being raised here and mentioning that Martha Coleman’s and Ruth Harley’s attendance at various Q&A’s is somehow being transparent and accountable when they are nothing more than rubber stamps talking in circles. Having watched both those meetings and listened to the feedback from others who have posted here and on other sites both these Q&A’s resulted in blanket bewilderment from the audience, wishing and hoping for some glimmer of change and hope on the horizon. Martha Coleman’s comments about supporting filmmakers and giving feedback to Producers about “Scripts & Productions not being ready” and passing the blame onto them, really in the end was a revelation..for all the wrong reasons. Ruth Harley talking in very defensive tones at the Metro Screen Q&A , threw up nothing beyond startling cynicism with her comments about “Paying writers to sit in rooms and write”. I’d like to apply for those programs…can you post me a link here so I can apply.(don’t bother we both know they don’t exist)
There seems to be a massive cognitive gap between what Screen Australia thinks is the best way forward and what those STRUGGLING in an impossible industry deep in crisis believe needs to fundamentally change if we are to have a diverse and sustainable industry. We have had utterly no feedback about “A Heartbeat Away” and why this cliche riddled film was given support..this needs to be explained. The fact that a producer, also an EX CEO of the AFC can get funds for a film so poorly reviewed right across the board, to the point of being called a “rip-off” and “should never have been made” really sends a strong message to all those aspiring to build careers in this industry…nepotism and a gold pass to the “In Crowd” are required above and beyond artistic merit. if you don’t have this, don’t bother. Faith is at an all time low. SA needs to lead with some vision, don’t stand behind an already flawed approach, get out there and really engage….social media might help enormously. But you won’t find it on Youtube..(what are you doing there?)
I’d like to see an open mic with all those in development at SA who championed this production and why obvious flaws weren’t addressed and why this film wasn’t stopped in its tracks. If you want to take/distribute the $, justify the expenditure. Its a shocking waste of funds that could have helped a multitude of careers and put simply…stinks. Of course you won’t..and I know the reason..the process of appraisal would look unpolished…those in development would seem ignorant, asleep at the wheel..or even worse some real truth might emerge..and we wouldn’t what that…would we.
Don’t justify and stand defiant, actually engage…you might find some advice worth considering, because put simply…you need all the advice you can get!

Interesting reading. I don’t want to be the merchant of gloom, but you know I don’t think much is gonna change, they same old way of doing things will remain, maybe the odd new development program will be thrown into the mix, but really I can’t see the way films are funded and produced in this country changing, without the desire for radical change. Those in the know get the greenlight , while those on the outer struggle away. How many years do you think you are supposed to chase funding and be knocked back? 1-2-3-5-6-7-8-9-10 years? Before you finally give up and reconcile that you’re either untalented, unlucky, not in the club, or too innovative for the culture you’re born into, so you move away. How many turkeys can you help develop and assist in funding and keep your job? It doesn’t seem to matter.

I found this interesting ( and it answers other current questions)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORRNOnooroE

I think the impossible task facing independent Producers and writers (the creative engine room of any production, especially at the seed level) in the country is so utterly impossible that the resourceful and cunning hold on..maybe every ten years some real talent shines through..but its the resourceful and cunning that meet the criteria and slowly develop a career. I think the very nature of the impossibility of this industry is really killing off the potential for real talent to find a voice…people just give up and walk away..passion doesn’t always shine through and talent isn’t always rewarded. It simply isn’t and I think its also kind of sadistic to perpetuate the myth of a level playing field, it simply isn’t. I think if Screen Australia understood the impossibility of this task they’d utilize social media and roll out more effective ways to try and quicken the discovery of quality scripts. Employ more readers, create more effective and approachable writing programs that work with Producers and slowly you will see an industry turn around..if we can’t tackle the impossibility of survival in this industry…how are we ever going to generate the kind of entertainment audiences want to see?
We won’t…
Enough Bullshit Screen Australia…stop dancing around your own fire, stop and acknowledge an industry in deep crisis and do something radical and pragmatic..
Its not impossible, but carving out a career in this industry is.

I read on another Encore discussion site (about ‘A Heartbeat Away’) about how many jobs the production created. This is the ultimate Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for incompetent bureaucrats. Audiences hated to film? No problem, since it provided X jobs for people in the industry. Is this why we make films? Imagine if the same criteria were used in other arts. “Yes, we acknowledge that the orchestra played out of tune and couldn’t keep time, but we have provided 43 people with an income…” Or, “Competency as a ballet dancer is but one of the criteria we use to make assessments regarding which ballet companies we will invest in. This company has provided jobs for…” Go through any of the arts and imagine if this argument – the provision of jobs – was held up as a reason to reward incompetence.
If the ‘jobs’ argument is accepted by we filmmakers, if it is accepted by film bureaucrats and if it is accepted by those who control the treasury purse it really doesn’t matter at all if our films are good or bad; if the public wants to see them or not. If we accept this state of affairs it should come as no surprise to us if, at some point a little way down the track (maybe even the next budget), the general public – seeing us, with considerable justification, as a bunch of self-indulgent wankers with our noses in the trough – gives us no support when a government (state or federal) decides to put the money wasted on films no-one wants to see into a new hospital, aged care, improved mental health services…something socially worthwhile; something much more worthwhile than providing jobs for people who work in the film ‘industry’. It is not an industry at all. It is a sheltered workshop.
If you detect some anger lurking not too far beneath the surface of this post it is because I have just seen Martha Coleman on YouTube giving the worst impersonation of a competent film bureaucrat I have ever encountered, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb8liXq2VE) absolving herself of all responsibility for the second-rate screenplays that emerge from a script development process that she oversees. It is hardly surprising that she should not want to take part in any debate in which she would have to defend the indefensible. When Does Ms Coleman’s contract expire? I long for the day! Next time around can her position be filled, please, by someone who can tell the difference between a good screenplay and a bad one and who doesn’t use “at the end of the day” in every second sentence!

Yep…that is a real and very big fear, with more natural disasters probably down the pipe and a mental health care system utterly under funded, the Government could slash funding and say this is a basket case nobody wants to pay for…but it simply shouldn’t be that way..it should be an industry that can draw on a talent pool with an abundance of screenplays from writers wanting to make challenging and innovative work, matched with producers eager to bring these projects to reality, across a myriad of budgets..that make it attractive for the private sector to get on board.
I think the real problem with A Heartbeat Away is that it is a shining example of what we don’t want to see, but still it travelled down the channels of production:

But if you look at the current “Proven” terminology for writer/directors, even this is quickly becoming outdated in this rapidly changing world of ours:

A ‘proven’ writer, director or writer/director is defined as having :

* one credit in these roles on a feature that has been selected for Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Sundance or Toronto or has received an Academy Award nomination, or has been a significant commercial success, OR
* at least two credits in these roles on features released on a minimum of five commercial screens in one territory, or primetime broadcast miniseries or telemovies, OR
* credits in these roles for at least six broadcast hours of primetime series (not serials).

What about the filmmaker who couldn’t access any of this “Proven Criteria” and makes a film and sticks it on Vimeo and gets a million hits as opposed to maybe 3,000 people who saw it at a festival.
Isn’t this proven criteria as well?
Think I’m deluded? Check this out:

http://www.shortoftheweek.com/.....le-cipher/

The next generation of filmmakers are seeing rolling out productions online as the ONLY alternative in an impossible industry. I mean a very select few meet this “Proven” criteria, but it doesn’t always mean you have a feature ready to go that carries any creative weight or insight or polish or you’re actually capable of tackling a feature. I mean this criteria is what A Heartbeat Away would have met..irrespective of the fact the screenplays was from a first timer and the director had never directed a feature, which leads us to the Producer equation, experienced…yes. Out of touch? Maybe..well obviously in this case.
I’d suggest Screen Australia rethink what “proven” means and roll out some more radical writing based programs that can turn around this narrative drought. Everybody is blaming the lack of quality scripts..everybody. So how are writers going to write them and how are they going to connect with Producers and Directors?
There’s a lot of development programs utilizing online models…stop mapping your summer and roll out programs that have actual results!!
Why should a whole industry be beholden to a small group of people who “presume to know” in an industry that desires to be innovative, diverse, sustainable and successful.

Doug

That the ‘proven’ concept is nonsense is borne out by the inclusion of ‘Sleeping Beauty’ in Cannes next month – by a first time director – just as it was borne out by ‘Samson and Delilah’ a few years back at Cannes also. Unfortunately, Screen Australia’s all-too-often rigidly adhered to guidelines bear little relationship to the realities of filmmaking.

However, Amidst all the gnashing of teeth, angst and negativity being expressed here in relation to ‘A Heartbeat Away’, let’s acknowledge that Screen Australia abrogated its own guidelines in backing ‘Sleeping Beauty’ – just as it did with ‘Heartbeat’. It would seem that it did so (quite justifiably) on the basis of the screenplay

Well before the film was funded I heard nothing but glowing reports about how good the screenplay for ‘Sleeping Beauty’ was so it seems, in this instance, that Screen Australia has made a sound judgment based on the quality of the screenplay. How is it, then, that Screen Australia could not see that ‘A Heartbeat Away’ was a very poor screenplay? Or were there factors other than the screenplay that came into play in deciding to invest so heavily in it?

All those involved in greenlighting ‘Sleeping Beauty’ will, it seems, have every reason to be proud of their having done so. Why then, as an organization, is Screen Australia unprepared to discuss the many occasions on which it has not made a sound judgment? This can and should be discussed in a debate that has as its purpose not looking for scapegoats but identifying problems that need to be addressed.

An open and ongoing dialogue between Screen Australia and the industry is one way in which solutions to problems can be found – hence the idea of a Q&A style debate. Such debates could (and I believe should) be a regular feature of our industry. Apart from the solutions that may be found, such public interactions would have the desired effect of breaking down the ‘us and them’ dynamic that has arisen between Screen Australia and so many sectors of the film community – a dynamic that no doubt makes senior Screen Australia management feel disinclined to confront the angry filmmakers it has refused to communicate with. A vicious cycle. it needs to be broken.

Yes, Ruth, Fiona and Martha, you may have some difficult questions to answer in relation to ‘A Heartbeat Away’ if you attend the Q&A debate (as I hope you do) but you will also be able to point to ‘Sleeping Beauty’ as an example of how Screen Australia does get it right sometimes. And to Ivan Sen’s new film. And to ‘Animal Kingdom’. Take pride in your successes and learn from your failures. And talk to us, keep us informed.

The question for all of us is: How do we see to it that as few as possible ‘Heartbeats’ get made and as many as possible ‘Sleeping Beauties’ – all the while bearing in mind the immortal words of William Goldman: “Nobody knows anything.”

Well said James..this isn’t just a kicking in a dark back alley of everything Screen Australia does and stands for. Sleeping Beauty looks like a great film as does Snowtown as was The Animal Kingdom. What we are trying to point out here is that the “proven” criteria can also create tosh like A Heartbeat Away and can also limit the ability for worthwhile screenplays to be developed. You cannot just say you got it wrong..people need to know..how you got it wrong and trust that this won’t be repeated. We can’t afford to get it so woefully wrong at the $7million tag( that’s not getting it wrong, its asleep at the wheel). There are creative teams out there in desperate need of a leg up in this impossible industry and none of us want to see the potential lessons learned from productions like A Heartbeat Away or The Tender Hook swept under the rug. Currently I don’t think enough is being done by Screen Australia or other funding bodies to set the platform for continued innovative work to be developed at the script level and for those scripts to then find a nexus with the appropriate Producer and Director. How can we create a development program that addresses this? The current system can see Producers who tick all the boxes getting paid to produce the kind of stuff that nobody wants to see, simply because they meet all the “Proven Criteria”, which has in fact “proven” to be riddled with nepotism with the project in question taking a back seat.

Is it not the guidelines/catch 22 of funding that first time writer and first time director will not receive funding unless prior credit? Anyway, this is why I invested in my own feature: Wasteland.

http://www.wastelandwasteland.com

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pag.....2593946610

Support is needed in the form of sales agent and/or producers rep.

Judging from the present state of the industry and the centralising of power that everybody is complaining about (and justifiably so) it would be timely now to revert to a more democratic system like we had under 10BA.
Granted, a lot of bad films got made, but there were also some crackers (not only big Box Office) but also a lot of films that were culturally important and critically acclaimed.
At least under this regime the playing field was much more level and the producer had a fair shot at raising money directly from the investor.
It would be very interesting to see comparisons of all films made under 10BA (their budgets, returns etc.) against films that have been funded since its demise, under the various government agencies.

I just saw Martha Coleman’s comments on you tube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb8liXq2VE) whereby she gives the impression that you don’t necessarily need her or the development departments approval to go into production. They only give guidence as to whether your script is ready or not and you can trot off to the investment stage if you want. So you take your project to the investment committee but guess what, Martha’s there giving an opinion on your script. Okay , you’re get kicked out of investment but somehow manage to find alternate investment outside SA, so you apply for the Producer Offset, but again guess what, Martha Coleman is on the Producer Offset committee, how strange. The secret committee that makes decisions with no explanation or appeal because SA wisely put it under the Tax act making any public discussion/examination of their decisions illegal. Which is why they can get away with calling ‘The Great Gatsby’ an Australian film and giving that struggling film maker, Baz, millions and millions of taxpayers money with no accountability…

After all thisI suppose you could apply for the Enterprise Program just to keep you going. But no, you guessed it, Martha is on that committee as well.

Who is this Martha Coleman? What unique insight, experience and talent does she possess. As far as I can tell she’s produced one feature… Wow!
Surely in all fairness, Minister Crean needs to instigate an outside review into SA’s processes and practices.

Why are the people who make decisions about funding these films never punished by losing their jobs? Why do the funding bodies keep making excuses for any film that fails? A bad script is a bad script and it is virtually impossible to make a good film from a bad script. And a bad script is easy to recognize by anyone who has some knowledge of the craft of scriptwriting. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that those whose job it is within Screen Australia to make decisions about which scripts should be funded and which should not know very little about scriptwriting. Oh, I know the answer! Why not fly in some ‘experts’ from overseas. The more the merrier. Hey, if you add 2 or 3 experts to a bad script it’s bound to get better, right? And if these ‘experts’ say, ‘This is a good script’ the bureaucrats who run the industry and don’t know shit from shinola will be impressed and throw lots of money at it. Pathetic. Is there any evidence that any screenplay blessed by the magical touch of one of these self styled gurus has been improved in the process? ‘A Heartbeat Away’ was produced from a bad script. If Martha Coleman couldn’t see that, if Fiona Cameron couldn’t see it, if Ruth Harley couldn’t see it, why do they still have jobs that require some skill at being able to tell the difference between a good and a bad screenplay? Who did they think the audience was for ‘A Heartbeat Away’? If you are not prepared to answer these questions, Ruth, Fiona and Martha, please just resign and let your jobs be filled by experienced film practitioners who are prepared to answer questions, who are prepared to engage in dialogue with the film community, who are prepared to recognize when they have made mistakes and rectify them. With each new failed Australian film it becomes clearer and clearer that Screen Australia is the problem, not the solution to the problems pointed out with monotonous regularity in these Encore discussions. Either do whatever is needed to solve these problems, Ruth, Martha and Fiona, or please fall on your swords ASAP and give someone else a go.

I was talking to a friend the other day, he’d done three years of film school accumulated a massive debt and has toiled away in the industry for the last ten years doing a variety of jobs applying for grants trying to get funding for this and that, slowly he realized he wasn’t going forward as a filmmaker he was going backwards to the point that he no longer felt that anything he had done in the last five years of his life pointed towards any kind of forward progression. Getting in touch with other classmates he found that not one was still striving to make films or striving for career in an impossible industry, all were still trying to pay off their debts accumulated during their education..the picture was bleak.. he said “Its simply a closed shop..you either make the right connections or you don’t..how you make those is anybodies guess..I’ve had films shown around the world won some awards..still I can’t seem to break through and have given up expecting to..but what do you do with ten years of failed experience trying to get noticed in an industry that really only desires to look after a select few while trying to beat-up the myth that if you make good work you’ll have a measure of success..the worst thing is the myth starts at the education level and continues with every annual round of funding..you really don’t have a chance..I mean of course you have to have talent..but that’s only a small percentage of the total equation needed.. meeting the proven criteria alone is enough to stop you even trying, after a while you see so much mediocrity getting up that you simply give up”.
I wonder what kind of industry are we trying to build, one with fresh ideas and innovation at the core of our aspirations or one that we trust and hope in the good faith of a handful people in development within various funding bodies will dictate what kind of films and careers might eventually be rolled out. We draw on myth to help create our narratives and we see a myth perpetuated from our educational institutions all the way through into our government appointed funding bodies.

Fiona, I have a question for you. I can’t afford $399 to hear Ruth Harley answer it at the Encore Q&A.

“As a young and inexperienced filmmaker how do I get Screen Australia to read my film project proposals and decide if they have merit or not?”

Get a ‘proven’ producer I am told. The ‘proven’ producers in a position to help me are those who have received Screen Australia money as part of the Enterprise program. Most of them do not accept unsolicited scripts, do not respond to emails or letters and those that do speak with me on the phone say that they already have a slate of projects in development and are not in a position to take on any more. What do I do?

If there is a debate on that doesn’t cost any money I’ll come along to it and ask my question but why can’t someone from Screen Australia answer it right here online @ Encore?

If I get to ask a second question it will be:

“Has the $10 million invested in the Enterprise program resulted in any decent screenplays yet?”

Its an absurd situation when you have to fork out $400 to hear a government employee speak about an industry they think they are doing a wonderful job of supporting while they roll out lip service programs to the next generation like “Map my Summer” on Youtube. Patronizing ill conceived ideas that they feel appeal to young filmmakers who are acquiring tech skills at an astonishing rate, while over on Vimeo young filmmakers are rolling out film after film that really have professional polish and Screen Australia has no presence on that platform whatsoever..great social media advice you’re getting there, worth every taxpayers cent. My advice Young and Confused, make as many shorts as you can, open up a Vimeo Pro account and just keep uploading them because currently the powers that be have Zero interest in creating the kind of industry that will suit a rapidly changing entertainment landscape. If you can get past the phalanx of producer indifference in this country and even then manage to climb the high cliffs of nepotism and “Proven Criteria” you might stand a chance of getting somewhere around 35-40, those chances are slim, don’t believe the myth..I’d just keep writing screenplays and load them up to the Amazon screenwriting competition…they don’t have a “proven criteria”….just a desire for good stories that connect with an audiences.
Alternatively maybe you could get into a national Film School and meet somebody who might work in development ten years down the track and if they’re not trying to “develop” their mates script or their own, they might take pity on the fact your creative ambitions are going nowhere and throw you a lifeline…or maybe you could get on a development committee..that always helps.

Rosie

If there was an award for the best post so far in this debate you’d win it hands down. With a sense of humour (I haven’t laughed so much in weeks) you have identified, in microcosm, the problem that infects the entire organism that is Screen Australia. It comes as no surprise that Martha Coleman, Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron would not wish, in a public debate, to answer the questions implicit in what you have written.

I noticed that Fred Schepisi in a recent interview has changed his position radically and now supports the re-introduction of a democratic 10BA type system to replace the current regimes and their biased programmes. Fred was long the champion of film bodies but now with the benefit of hindsight and having witnessed the destruction of our industry, has swung around.
The government should listen carefully to people of this stature.
BTW to Doug and your young friend, I clearly remember hiring crew for a string of 10BA films in Melbourne and was unable to find enough trained people, so was forced to very often mix experienced pros with new faces who had little or no experience.
Many of these people have gone on to have great careers here and overseas. On the other hand many people were also forced into unemployment with the demise of 10BA and the rise of the centralised government bodies being run by a handful of club members and bureaucrats with all this power.
Most were forced to leave the “industry” and work in other jobs.
Let’s lobby the government to bring back a 10BA system, so that we can level the playing field again and all have a fair crack at reaching the investor directly, without having to worry whether Ruth, Martha and Fiona like our script!!

Why? How? Can one person be given so much influence? Her CV doesn’t stack up..this is just absurd, so if you don’t need the development departments approval to go into production and they won’t apply the breaks if something so obviously stinks like A Heartbeat Away..what good are they and why do we need them? Why is public discussion and examination illegal? This is a democracy the last time I checked, we do hold government to account for their decisions, why not funding bodies? Why create these not transparent catch 22 scenarios in an industry that is supposed to be supporting filmmakers do what they do, which is make film and TV productions? $400 to go and hear government employees speak about how they edit what we show the world as being an Australian perspective…its simply disgusting.

Interesting reading…

Screen Australia
Enterprise Agreement
2009 – 2011

PART A: VISION, VALUES AND OBJECTIVES
2. Our Values and Code of Conduct
2.1 We are committed to the APS Values and Code of Conduct, as expressed in
Sections 10 and 13 of the Public Service Act 1999, and to Screen Australia’s Code of
Conduct.

2.2 We uphold the following values:
(a) to be openly accountable to the Australian Government and the communities
we serve;
(b) to demonstrate respect, responsiveness, fairness, timeliness, equity and
transparency of decision-making to employees, clients and stakeholders;
(c) to encourage and facilitate the participation of a range of clients, reflecting the
diversity of the Australian community;
(d) to exercise excellence, leadership, innovation and courage in all our areas of
work.

3. Our Objectives
3.1 Screen Australia’s Corporate Plan outlines our commitment to:
(a) grow demand for Australian content;
(b) support the development of a more sustainable screen industry;
(c) increase the quality, variety and ambition of projects and talent being
developed;
(d) ensure that indigenous content is central to the wider success of the Australian
screen industry.

Screen Australia Enterprise Agreement 2009 – 2011 Page 2
(e) lead industry debate by being an authoritative source of information about the
Australian screen industry; and
(f) be an efficient, responsive and accountable organisation.

3.2 In pursuing these values and objectives, Screen Australia commits to achieving
continuous improvement in:
(a) the use of its administrative resources;
(b) organisational and individual competency and performance;
(c) productivity and efficiency;
(d) integrity and professional ethics.

Written in stone.. a bit wish washy in practice.

Given that Ruth Harley, Fiona Cameron and Martha Coleman have declined an invitation to attend the proposed Q&A forum (to be held some time in June) an invitation has been extended to the Hon Simon Crean to attend so that he can get some sense, first hand, not only of the problems that our industry faces but of the solutions that are being proposed. In the event that Mr Crean is unable to attend, the invitation has been extended to those within the Ministry for the Arts who advise him on matters relating to Screen Australia.

So I take it: Ruth, Martha, and Fiona don’t really think this section of the Screen Australia Enterprise agreement is really worth anything more than ink on a page.

Screen Australia Enterprise Agreement 2009 – 2011 Page 2
(e) lead industry debate by being an authoritative source of information about the
Australian screen industry; and
(f) be an efficient, responsive and accountable organization.

so Fiona Cameron’s statement above was just bogus? The fact remains if they don’t engage and see the community they are sworn to support as threatening, there can really be no accountability or transparency. Us and them..ho hum.. Personally I don’t want to see anybody sacked..all I want to see is a recognition of problems with public policy and the approach to development to change, and for programs to be rolled out that address the obvious…we need radical change and a shift in perspective if we are to remain sustainable.

any forum should include the NSW Minister for the Arts. He can ask Megan Simperson Huberman (head of development at Screen NSW) why she greenlit development on ‘Bikini Bandits Downunder’.
(check out a teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iicgYO2SNV4)
His next question would be – ‘Why isn’t this in the Aurora Program?’. It’s perfect for workshopping. A few days in the Hunter over bottle or 2 of chardonay and some funny outfits. Come on Megan, get going.

Call Martha Coleman over at SA, you know her, you’ve worked there. Send over a copy of ‘Bikini Bandits Go to Hell’, she’ll love it. I heard Ruth Harley and the board have seen it… twice. Get going before you get that call you’ve been dreading from the Minister, demanding ‘Why the hell hasn’t this been made!!!”

” Personally I don’t want to see anybody sacked.”
Doug I’m sure with their outstanding track records all of them would have no trouble finding employment in the real world.
I’m sure all of the distribution companies would fight for their services.

A Screen NSW anecdote:

I make an application for script development funds under the Early R&D Program. It runs to thirty two and a half pages. My application cannot be considered, Screen NSW informs me as it is two and a half pages too long. The limit is thirty pages. I ask Screen NSW if it would accept my application if I reformatted it so that it came in at thirty pages – without changing a word. The answer was ‘yes’. I reformat, resubmit. Thirty page application accepted for assessment.

Am now working on a new R&D submission: “Budgie Smugglers Downunder” – with a walk on role for Tony Abbott. It’s running at 34 pages right now but if I change the font and widen the margins a little…

Instead of being retirement homes for failed filmmakers and second-rate screenwriters the film bureaucracies should be organizations that exploit the skills and knowledge of praciticing and experienced filmmakers on brief contracts before sending them back out into the real world. Google any of the Project Managers or Development Managers or whatever they call them and you will be underwhelmed by the lack of experience most of them have in the field in which they are supposedly expert enough to pass judgement on filmmakers more experienced and talented than themselves. Lets keep recyling those bureaucrats involved in makign creative decisions about the kinds of films that should be developed and recommended for funding

Eddie10..I simply don’t see any point in sacking people..everybody loses then. A Change in policy and roll out of ambitious development programs is needed followed by a perspective shift that sees writers as an integral aspect of the filmmaking process. As an industry we still fail miserably when it comes to see the real worth of the screenwriter and this is reflected in the sorry state of development funding. A lot of people pay lip service to the craft of screenwriting, but very few understand how much this integral craft needs to be nurtured. No need for heads to roll, just roll out more ambitious development programs and make the almighty $ go a long way.

“recycling film bureaucrats”.

Prolific ‘international’ filmmaker Brian Rosen perfect example – left APS pursue free market opportunities – can’t wait.

WRONG Rosie! Wrong! ‘Bikini Bandits Downunder’ WAS in the Aurora Program.

They’ve workshopped it, they’ve videoed it. In fact – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iicgYO2SNV4
is the workshop in action and shows what a great job the Aurora Program is doing developing talent and getting it up there for all to see. It was a terrific weekend, everyone joined in, including the experts from overseas and all the team from Screen NSW. I’m sick of people like you attacking Megan and her people. They’re not only highly qualified and specialists in their field but they can ACT too! Great work.

So stop being negative, you’re just jealous, those Bandits are the only things we’ve got going in this industry.

James, you’re dreaming! Crean will not show his face at your Q&A. He will not bother to respond to your invitation. He never does. Crean is carrying on where Garrett left off – leaving the film industry to be destroyed by the second rate hacks who now run it and are accountable to no-one.

Doug good points and I suspect we all agree that a lot more funding should go to writers as we are the engine room of the industry, but for too long have been unable to make anything approaching a living writing screenplays (virtually impossible with the rare exception of a tiny handful).
Rather most of us work in other industries, or write TV or live in garrets etc. and basically struggle to write our screenplays without funding from anybody except ourselves. We are funding the development process, not them.

But imagine Doug if they got rid of dead wood who inhabit the funding bodies and ploughed the money back into script development?
Writers would be able to write full-time on their projects and the chances of getting better screenplays would rise dramatically.
Then, it would be so much easier for the producer to raise funds, through artist and director attachments and finally distribution deals to trigger the funding bodies’ involvement.
At the moment all of these bodies are top heavy with administration staff and expenses etc. Just compare their total costs Australia -wide, with the running costs of large companies in L.A. like Universal, Warners etc. The costs are massive and only a fraction of it is going to writers.

In response to ‘recycling film bureaucrats’ I agree that Project Managers etc. in positions that require them to make creative judgements about the funding of screenplays in development should be replaced as often as possible. And I agree that having experienced producers, directors, screenwriters in these roles is a good idea. However, it is a mistake to exclude those who may, regardless of their experience, be very good Readers. This can best be ascertained by an external assessment process of the assessor/Reader/ProjectManagers. Match their assessments of screenplays in development, through to investment funding, against the films that are made from the projects they are involved in greenlighting.

‘A Heartbeat Away’ and ‘Griff the Invisible’ are two of the most recent examples of films that went into production with no-one within the funding bodies involved in developing and investing in the films recognizing that the script was anywhere close to being ready to go into production. Okay, we all make mistakes, but how many mistakes can one person within a funding body make before they are tapped on the shoulder? And who is going to do the tapping? This is where a good CEO is worth his or her weight in gold – keeping talent flowing in and out of the funding bodies and not allowing any form of creative stagnation to set in; not encouraging, as is the case now, a clique of creative decision makers who, by moving from one funding body to another, have virtual tenure within the industry. If we truly want a diverse industry we also need diversity within the ranks of those making creative decisions. Three years maximum I would suggest, before Project Managers (by whatever name) are sent back out into the real world to fend as best they can.

Well.. the EP Chris Brown who was behind the turkey “A Heartbeat Away” has just been harshly punished by Screen Australia by allocating him more funding for the Spierig Brothers next film Jungle, so you know its that kind of business. He was also behind Daybreakers and that made cash, so I suppose I understand the rationale…so we’re back to the roulette wheel with the taxpayers funds and all is forgiven..here’s some more cash and we’ll forget that last bad joke you told at the dinner party. He must be one hell of a salesman. Still..we could only find enough money to fund the completion of two short films to help launch the careers of a handful of filmmakers..$7million would have funded a lot of struggling talent trying to develop careers. Do us a favour Chris..next time you have a great feel good family film that is an utter rip-off that has a demographic of 12-70 could you maybe shoot it on an I-phone and load it up to Youtube.

http://www.encoremagazine.com......pirit-7254

“We put a lot of money into the music; it was one of the things that we protected. We shaved the shoot from eight to six weeks; everything got reduced except the music,” explained Fitchett.

Music supervisors Mana Music licensed the rights to the songs that define the different generations in the film, Richard Harris’ “MacArthur Park” (1968) and Nirvana’s “Smells like Teen Spirit” (1991)

You know the cash you shipped to Courtney Love for licensing Smells Like Teenage Spirit could have launched ten careers…at least!

Chris ‘Brown (‘A Heartbeat Away’) getting more development money just shows you Martha Coleman’s philosophy, genre, genre no matter what. ‘When you’re on a good thing, stick to it’. It’s a joke, when is failure accountable?

infact, when you look those at getting the latest development round. Many are individually rich. Why can’t they use some of the own money and stop creaming off the public purse. I suppose money and star power buys you friends in high places.

I googled Martha Coleman and its wrong to say shes only made one film. She’s produced or executive produced three feature films – ‘Praise’, ‘On a Clear Day’ and ‘Run Fatboy Run’. The production budget for ‘Praise’ is not available and it took only  $29,874 at the box office. Hardly a stellar success! The production budget for ‘On a Clear Day’ is not available and the film took only $1 million worldwide. Not a stellar success. ‘Run Fat Boy Run’ did better. The budget for the film was $10 million and took $33 million worldwide. Not a bad result.

Its wrong to suggest that Coleman is not an experienced producer but the question is a valid one: Does her track record as a producer warrant her being on every significant committee within Screen Australia whose hoops filmmakers must jump through if their project is to be blessed by Screen Australia? If your project just happens not to be the kind of film Coleman likes all doors could be closed to you.

Googling Victoria Triole doesn’t turn up any evidence of her having been involved in any film that either achieved critical acclaim or put bums on seats. The only film she has produced, a short, was entitled ‘Hayride to Hell’ – made in 1995. Perhaps it was a work of genius and brilliantly produced but that was 16 years ago! And it was a short! What has Triole done since then other than be a rusted-on bureaucrat shifting between various different funding bodies? How many trips to Cannes has she made at the expense of the Australian tax-payer?

Mathew Dabner co-wrote ‘The Square’ and was script editor on ‘Griff the Invisible’ – neither film achieving box-office success or critical acclaim. What are Dabner’s qualifications other than being another rusted-on film bureaucrat whose only qualification is that he is rusted on? The same applies for Veronica Gleeson. Has she ever written a screenplay, produced or directed a film? Has she ever been associated with even one film that has put bums on seats or achieved critical acclaim? If she has there is certainly no evidence of it to be found on the internet. The same applies for Susan Boehme. The closest she has come to being involved in film production is to be found in Screen Australia’s description of her: “Susan has worked as a marketing consultant for Broadway productions, producer of off-Broadway plays, and actor on Broadway, off-Broadway, and in regional theatres. Susan studied at Oxford University and graduated from Brown University.” What does any of this have to do with an ability to be able to assess screenplays and make recommendations to the Screen Australia Board to invest? If she is a brilliant, astute Reader of screenplays could someone who has had dealings with her please speak up in her defence?

Dear Glen Boreham and Members of the Screen Australia Board

Ruth Harley, Fiona Cameron and Martha Coleman have declined an invitation to take part in a Q&A debate with the film industry in June. We are wondering whether any members of the Board would like to be represented in the debate? Perhaps you, as Chair, would like to participate? Perhaps Robert Connolly and Rachel Perkins would also – since both have extensive first-hand experience of the problems facing filmmakers? The date in June is yet to be finalized. It is dependent on the availability of the members of the panel.

One question for any Board member participating in the Q&A will be along the following lines:

“Why did ‘Knowing’ (an American film) get the Producer’s Offset?”

The production’s original application to be considered an Australian film and thus eligible for the Producer Offset was rejected by Screen Australia. However, after completion of the film and, it seems, to the surprise of the producers in Los Angeles, the film did receive the Producer Offset. It has been suggested that the amount of tax-payer’s money given to the foreign producers of ‘Knowing’ was A$20 million.

We understand that the provisions of the Tax Act forbids disclosure of the amount of Australian tax-payer’s money shipped off-shore to the American producers of ‘Knowing’, so you cannot answer the ‘How much money?” question. The Board can, however, answer the question:

“Why was the Producer Offset belatedly granted to a film that had been completed and did not require Australian tax-payer’s money to be made?”

The answer to this question floating around the industry is that by declaring ‘Knowing’ to be an Australian film Screen Australia could inflate the box office statistics for Australian films that year. Can you reassure us, either at the Q&A or in writing, that this cynical (though widely held) view is indeed wrong and provide us with an alternative explanation?

I am publishing this as an open letter online at Encore and will publish whatever your response to this letter may be.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Mr Crean’s response to my attempts, over an 18 month period, to interview senior members of Screen Australia management speaks for itself. So too does Mr Crean’s response to questions relating to the amount of Australian tax-payer’s money that will leave the country as a result of ‘The Great Gatsby’ receiving the Producer Offset:

“As you may be aware, Screen Australia, as a statutory authority, operates at arm’s length from the Government. As such, decisions relating to the granting of interviews are a matter for the Board and senior management of the agency.

In relation to Screen Australia’s administration of the Producer Offset, it is worth noting that the agency is bound by tax law secrecy provisions which prevent Screen Australia from discussing any specific project that may, or may not, have applied for a Producer Offset certificate.”

In relation to Screen Australia’s administration of the Producer Offset, it is worth noting that the agency is bound by tax law secrecy provisions which prevent Screen Australia from discussing any specific project that may, or may not, have applied for a Producer Offset certificate.”

Unbelievable! How has this been allowed to happen? Who is responsible? What can we do to change this?

@ J R. (your not alone).

Your criticism regarding Glen Boreham has foundation – is justified.
Personal opinion based on experience is he’s merely there for the kudo’s & publicity – should have resigned a long long tme ago – like yourself attempted direct (honest) approach – asked (emailed). “as a free market practiitione do you believe a return of 4.5% of our own local market is acceptable?'”. (current local producers share of total AUS 2010 market). SA lackey emailed back . “We posted our Chairman Glen Boreham’s reply to the postal address you supplied and it was consequently returned undelivered”. Remarkable given I’d never supplied a postal address. Here we have a supposed IT guru who not only knows jack shit about film or communication – but apparently can’t even email?
SA has subsequently ceased all contact.
No lets go for em – turn up heat – confident there are many other concerned stakeholders such as myself who will assist – like they’ve (SA) collectively aquired a mindset that’s convinced them that their beyond approach – reproach & criticism.

What their doing simply isn’t working – hasn’t for a long time – time for change.

@ JR.

In essense what your saying is problems a procedural one – all (first stage) “submissions” should be considered soley on merit? Tax file numbers are a ‘much later’ contract matter? Go with that – only problem is a very obvious communications blockage (disconnect) between all parties.

Dear Mr Crean

Many thanks for your letter regarding Screen Australia’s refusal to grant interviews and information relating to the administration of the Producer Offset.

Do you believe it to be in the best interests of transparency and accountability that senior management at Screen Australia is under no obligation at all to answer difficult or probing questions of the kind that might arise in an interview with a journalist?

It is but a short step from refusing to be interviewed to refusing to take part in an industry forum in which precisely the same questions a journalist might ask will be asked by filmmakers.

It remains to be seen whether members of the Screen Australia Board will accept the invitation that has been extended to them to take part in the June Q&A forum. Given that they work for a statutory authority and are hence under no obligation to answer questions they may well decline on these grounds – in which no representative of Screen Australia will be involved.

Whilst the provisions of the Tax Act make it impossible for you to reveal the details of any particular film that has applied for or been granted the Producer Offset, do these provisions also preclude your being able to reveal how many Australian tax-payer dollars have been spent this past two years part-financing American films that just happen to be shot in Australia?

For a government committed to transparency and accountability placing the Producer Offset within the Tax Act seems to have been an error in judgement. Is there any possibility, under the current Labor government, that it might be relocated in another Act such that the working of the Producer Offset are open to public scrutiny?

We look forward to the participation of members of your staff in our June Q&A forum.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Hi James,

Any reply from Mr. Crean to your letter?

Eddie

Crean’s office says that it will reply within 20 working days of receipt of my letter so I should get a response late this week, early next.

The Screen Australia Board has not acknowledged receipt of the invitation sent to it two weeks ago to participate in the Q&A forum, leading me to send the following to Rachel Perkins and Robert Connolly:

Dear Rachel and Robert

It is now two weeks since I sent an invitation to members of the Screen Australia Board to participate in a Q&A forum with the industry in June – now more likely to be held in July. We have received no response.

In the event that you have not, for some reason, seen the 27th April letter of invitation, I have attached it and renew our invitation to you to participate as panelists. As both filmmakers and Board members you will have a perspective on the issues to be discussed that would be of interest to your fellow filmmakers.

cheers

James

Thanks for the update James. We all await their responses and hopefully the opportunity to field a few questions to them come July.

12th May letter to Simon Crean:

Dear Minister

Further to our invitation to you or members of your office to attend the film industry Q&A forum – now more likely to be held in July rather than June.

It is now two weeks since Glen Boreham, Chair of the Board of Screen Australia, Rachel Perkins and Robert Connolly (two Board members who are also filmmakers) and other members of the Board were invited to participate. There has been no acknowlegement of receipt of the invitation to date. It seems that no-one from senior management at Screen Australia or from its Board is prepared to enter into an open dialogue with the industry about the issues confronting and of concern to filmmakers.

In Nov. 2009, in relation to education reform, Julia Gillard said, “Today I want to talk about our drive to create a new era of transparency.” When asked if she hoped the new My School website would pressure some institutions into lifting their standards, the Prime Minister replied:

“Transparency does place pressure on people. Pressure to improve, that’s a good kind of pressure.”

Why does this same spirit of transparency not apply to Screen Australia’s relationship with the film industry? Given the dearth of Australian films being made that Australian audiences actually want to see, surely some pressure should be applied to Screen Australia ‘to improve’? Entering into a dialogue with the industry would be a good place to start!

Why does the Labor party, as a matter of policy it seems, make it possible for Screen Australia to refuse to enter into meaningful dialogue with the industry of the kind that the Q&A forum is intended to address? Screen Australia might well respond to this assertion by claiming that just last week it conducted two forums – one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. The Sydney forum was only publically announced on the day it was to be held. No details were provided as to where it was to be held or at what time. It transpired that this forum was an invitation-only event. In a subsequent press release Screen Australia announced: “Forums were held in Sydney and Melbourne to discuss the key findings of the research with screen industry leaders.” Despite my 40 years experience making films I am clearly not considered to be an ‘industry leader’ and so was not invited.

Our Q&A forum will not be an invitation only event. It will be open to any and everyone, though it seems that Screen Australia will not be represented on the panel. One question to be discussed, relevant to your Ministry, will be: “Should Australian tax-payers be asked to part-finance the production of American films such as ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘View from a Bridge’?” We hope that representatives from your office may be in a position to answer this question and enter into the inevitable debate that will ensue.

best wishes

Eddie, James, you’re dreaming. Crean is not going to touch your forum with a barge-pole! It’s not his style. But hey, good luck with it. I’ll be there with bells if it happens – which I think is unlikely

Dreaming, you may be right but there’s always plenty of reasons why things do not turn out as you plan or as you would like them to. It’s worth giving it a go, though, giving it your best shot – as every filmmaker knows who has battled against impossible odds to get their film made.

When you’ve finished slagging off just about every Australian film everywhere on the net… and you’re left wondering why producers won’t take your call – and when you’ve finished (and promised) to publish private emails on the net… and you’re left wondering why no-one will return your emails… and when the state of the Australian film industry is such:
http://if.com.au/2009/12/11/ar.....TVGOG.html
http://if.com.au/2011/04/18/ar.....MNTXMQREPK
…ie: show zero return to Screen Australia on any of our films… and you wonder why the answer to “why fund anything” is “for economic activity benefits” – you’ve just got to admit that you should get out of the film industry.

With the way the opinion polls are showing it may be a short time frame for Mr. Crean and his cronies anyway. Perhaps the other side would be more receptive to taking a close look at the current policies and Screen Australia’s performance?

@LotToLearn: Not sure who the ‘you’ is that you are referring to here? If it is me you are factually wrong for the most part but you do raise an interesting question: If you don’t like the way the industry is being run do you (a) leave it or (b) lobby to change it? The same applies to all aspects of the society of which we are a part, of course. Politics and social commentary are based on the premise that change occurs as a result of the status quo being challenged and held to account; as a result of dialogue between people with opposing views as to what the best way forward is. More often the best way forward is a compromise but the change, incremental though it might be, is usually an improvement on the status quo.

Those who have been in the industry for a long time will remember other turbulent times in which the powers-that-be were challenged and, more often than not, beneficial change occurred as a result of the dialogue and debate that were engaged in within the industry. What has changed, what distinguishes our present problems from those of the past, is that (in my opinion) too many people engaged in an important debate (as is happening @ Encore) choose to do so anonymously. A dozen or so filmmakers complaining anonymously (even when they make useful suggestions regarding what can and should change) does not carry the same weight as when filmmakers en masse make their feelings known and offer constructive suggestions as to what can be changed to improve Australian film from both an industry and cultural perspective.

My constructive suggestion: Keep film bureaucrats moving in and out of the industry. Let there be fresh blood, new ideas, on a regular basis. Our industry is not being well served by an entrenched bureaucratic class. Let bureaucrats be held accountable in the same way that filmmakers are.

Julia Leigh is now experiencing the joys and horrors that all filmmakers feel when their baby, the film on which they have usually worked for years (in Julia’s case, SLEEPING BEAUTY), is on pubic display and is judged by others. This is part of the process. And it is sometimes a very painful part when your ‘baby’ is judged harshly. There is no getting away from it. I would argue that the same toughness must be applied to those who make the decisions that result in films being made – our film bureaucrats. If the films are successful in either box office or creative terms the decision-makers should be congratulated. If the films consistently fail at the box office and contribute little to our film culture these same decision-makers should be held to account. Questions should be asked. What has gone wrong? What continues to go wrong? How do we fix it? In most spheres of life if you continue to produce a product that no-one wants to buy the ruthless rules of economic reality apply and you are out of a job.

Film is a more complex ‘product’ however and it is worth keeping in mind William Goldman’s “No-one knows anything.” Picking what an audience will or will not want to see a couple of years down the track is difficult and even the most experienced (and successful) film producers, directors and screenwriters get it wrong as often as they get it right. The same will apply for film bureaucrats but I would argue that in a diverse film industry/culture in which ‘no-one knows anything’ and we all have different filmic tastes, that it is best to limit the contracts of our film taste-makers (film bureaucrats) to three years – after which they can return to the real and very difficult world of making a living in the industry.

In response to the invitation extended to Mr Crean and members of his staff to attend an industry forum (see letter of invitation, #121 above), the following has been received:

“Thank you for…inviting me to participate in a film industry question and answer forum in June 2011…Unfortunately, due to my diary and parliamentary obligations I am unable to accept your invitation.”

James, what did you expect? Are you surprised? It was not even on the cards that Mr Crean or any member of his staff would turn up to a forum focusing on Screen Australia – especially if no one from senior management at Screen Australia is going to turn up! Whether millions of dollars of tax-payer’s money winds up funding American films like ‘Gatsby’ and ‘View from The Bridge’ or Australian films for Australian audiences is obviously not a subject of much interest to the Australian public, so there’s no votes in it one way or the other for Crean or Labor. My guess is that the Australian public has given up on Australian film and who can blame them!

No, I’m not surprised, Dreaming On. It was worth a shot. If nothing else this exercize has made crystal clear that Screen Australia does not intend to enter into any dialogue or debate with the industry in which it does not control the terms of reference. The forum held by Screen Australia a couple of weeks ago in Sydney at The Dendy was excellent (full marks!) but it was not an opportunity for the industry to discuss any of the questions that arise incessantly in the discussions/debates that arise here @ Encore.

I think it fair to say that for many months now various Encore discussion sites have been filled with questions that filmmakers would like to put to senior management at Screen Australia; questions that many filmmakers believe should, at the very least, be the subject of an ongoing debate about the direction in which our film industry/culture is heading; a dialogue with our peak funding body about what sort of stories we should be telling and for whom.

Films such as KNOWING, THE GREAT GATSBY and A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE bring into focus perhaps the most important question of all – what sorts of films should Australian tax-dollars go into supporting? Such a debate, such a dialogue is one that it was hoped the planned Q&A forum, with the active participation of Screen Australia, would make a contribution to. It is a debate, a dialogue, that senior management at Screen Australia has declined to be involved in. It is a debate that Rachel Perkins and Robert Connolly have declined to be involved in – despite their wearing both the hats of filmmaker and Board Member and being in a position to see issues from at least two different perspectives. It is a dialogue, debate that Mr Crean does not believe it is important for his office to be involved in – whilst acknowledging that it would be very difficult for him to do so if there are no Screen Australia representatives present.

In short, at no level of Screen Australia, right through to the office of the Minister, is there any desire for such a forum, debate, dialogue (call it what you will) to take place. It is to be hoped, at the Encore Live session this week, that Ruth Harley will respond to the many questions – implicit and explicit – that appear here @ Encore.

Obviious question for Ruth Harley: “Why will neither your, nor anyone else from Screen Australia, agree to take part in an industry forum to discuss issues of importance to producders, directors, screenwriters and other filmmaking personnel who have no choice but to be consumers of SA’s services?”

I’ve come a little late to this and the other debates taking place on this site. I’ve been overseas for a few years. Wow, you are an angry lot, aren’t you? Do you realize how lucky you are to have the system you do – with so much more money floating around to make films than there is in the UK? But why, my film friends and I ask in the UK, do you make so many seriously bad films? I’m using a pseudonym because I want to re-establish myself back in Australia and don’t want to get on the wrong side of the bureaucrats who run the industry and who, from what I read on this site, can make life very difficult for you if you are not part of some inner circle. I want to be part of some inner circle but I also don’t want to, if that makes any sense. I just want my film projects assessed on their merits. Did this Q&A debate ever happen? Is it still pending?

Expat, the Q and A;A forum/debate is on hold for the time being. This is not for lack of trying. It’s hard, however, given that no-one from senior management at Screen Australia is willing to take part in it! Nor are either Rachel Perkins or Robert Connolly – Board Members and filmmakers also.

Screen Australia is not interested in genuine dialogue with the industry. It is interested only in ‘Briefings’ that it has total control of – set up in such a way as to discourage debate and minimize the possibility of genuine dialogue. And it’s not hard to understand why. How does Robert Connolly answer the following question with a straight face: “In what way, Robert, is a film of Arthur Miller’s 1955 play ‘A View from a Bridge’ Australian? [comment edited]

In an industry in which transparency and accountability were not just words to be trotted out at ‘Briefings’ Robert, Ruth, Martha and others would debate such questions with filmmakers in public. And filmmakers would, I think, respect them for doing so. [comment edited]

@Expat…its this weird twisted logic, that some people see the Australian Film Industry as being “Lucky”. Lucky that we use our own money to fund our own industry and that we elect a very small group of people to act as “informed” gatekeepers, controlling who succeeds and how? “Lucky” that careers can blossom while others as equally as talented ( if not more) perish, irrespective of the fact that a percentage of those that blossom can deliver consistent content that fails to connect either financially, artistically or on any remotely entertaining level. “Lucky” that nepotism has become a twisted and seemingly vital ingredient of the functionality of this industry? “Lucky” that we are told our funding bodies are accountable and transparent when in actual fact they are anything but. In England you have the national lottery fund to help finance your industry, here the industry has become a lottery, with some knowing the correct number sequence that will leverage poll position for the next round of funding so they can win the jackpot. Expat if you want to be judged by the merit of your idea understand this: it isn’t a meritocracy out there, if it was A Heartbeat Away would have ended up in the bin…nope in this “Lucky” industry A Heartbeat Away can be developed and $7million can be poured down the drain and not one smidgin of feedback from Screen Australia can be heard as to why. In this “Lucky” industry Film Victoria can shelve funding programs for emerging screenwriters and then just throw a $45K piss up for friends and cliques..[comment edited]. In this “Luck” drenched Industry filmmakers need to express their disgruntled opinions in the shadows because they live in fear of the fact that if they upset the apple cart, they won’t get any apples down the track. In this “Lucky” industry the system we have built to support filmmakers, does in fact support a minority who are determined to protect the established order via proven criteria that applies to the majority which in turn protects the minority.
My god..we are so “Lucky”..welcome back

@ Doug!

Why would the Development Managers and the Board of Screen Australia chose to back anything but the best screenplays that come their way? Maybe ‘Sleeping Beauty’, ‘A Heartbeat Away’ and ‘Griff the Invisible’ were the best scripts around at the time – which would be a pretty sad comment on the quality of Australian screenplays if it were so. Bad films all. ‘Sleeping’ the worst because it pretends to be something it is not. I couldn’t afford to go to hear Robert McKee but maybe with his help some decent screenplays will emerge and Screen Australia will have some better projects to support than second rate fate like Sleeping, Griff and Heartbeat.

A screenplay by ‘Doug’ perhaps!

@Expat-its a well known fact that those screenplays aren’t the best scripts going around, which is why people are scratching their heads and wondering why they were put into production. Do your homework and you can see why. “Doug” writes and reads lots of screenplays and he suggests you should do the same..
all the best
PS: Don’t worry about McKee..he’s intelligent man, with some interesting things to say about other subjects that don’t always relate to film..his “seminar” has in fact become a sermon for the apostles..make of that what you will

Expat, I’ve read enough produced scripts to know that you shouldn’t assume a bad film is the result of a bad screenplay. I’ve seen terrific scripts become very ordinary on screen, and ordinary or ‘bad’ scripts become good films. There is a great deal that can go wrong between page and screen.

There is a tendency these days to blame the long-suffering screenwriter for a dud, when in fact a finished film is the colaborative work of many people.

Yes, I’m a screenwriter. And by the way, I wouldn’t trust McKee to teach me how to present the title page.

Expat, Screen Australia may well have got behind ‘Sleeping Beauty’, “A Heartbeat Away’, Griff the Invisible’ and a long list of other feature films that Australian audiences have stayed away from in droves because it thought these films were to be produced from the best screenplays around. However, this does not mean that they WERE the best screenplays around! I know of many infinitely better screenplays. But let’s assume that you are right; that Screen Australia backs only the best screenplays. What does this say about Robert McKee and other script gurus who have been visiting our shores for many years now at great expense to our funding bodies and to impoverished filmmakers who want to write brilliant screenplays and think he is the Messiah? Surely the industry should, by now, be awash with brilliant screenplays! If, after all that script guru input, ‘Sleeping’, ‘Heartbeat’ and ‘Griff’ etc are so lacklustre perhaps it is time to put a big question mark over the wisdom of putting these ‘script experts’ on a pedestal – especially those with not one film credit to their name!

Like shooting fish in a barrel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQupVuzwmtg&feature=related

I have formally lodged a complaint against Screen Australia to the Ombudsman for the way SA dealt with our project. I received word on Wednesday that the Ombudsman’s office have decided to thoroughly investigate all of my complaints (36!)

[comment edited for legal reasons]

The whole approach to our project was based on a SLANT they put on everything, in which they second guessed our next move (re the script) by projecting what they ‘thought’ we had in mind for its development, despite the fact, and in relation to the key points in the treatment, the writers, the editor’s and the producer’s notes, which made it very clear how we intended to develop the characters and the narrative: ‘the approach we’d be taking to the script: we will focus on character development, dialogue, style, and ensure the film develops an important subtext that will be a window into a period of cultural significance that hasn’t been explored in Australian feature films…’ In this business, funding is a bonus, but a fair go should be f—ing mandatory.

Eugene

The theme of this thread is a perennial one and while I have no solution to offer I do have a couple of observations to make, for what they might be worth. I have toiled on both sides of the divide; as a filmmaker and (albeit for a mercifully short time) in an upper management position in a funding body where I was privy to the inner workings of policy and even given a front row seat to a sordid palace coup. It was an eye-opening experience to say the least.

The nature of the beast is essentially a political one and, therefore, so is the transaction taking place. Broadly speaking, most transactions have three parts or players: the service provider, the client or customer, and the collateral or assets to deliver the service and meet the KPIs (key performance indicators) set by the client and the service provider. Simple, as long as everyone knows their part. Complicated, when they don’t. Unfortunately, we (the filmmakers, and the film industry generally) still largely think we are the clients when we are merely the collateral. This bald truth was bluntly pointed out me by a hardened funding body bureaucrat a few years ago.

So who is the client?

Whoever sets the first KPIs. In this case the Minister, whose own KIP’s are set by the Prime Minister and Cabinet as the elected representatives of the people. The beast is political and, therefore, can only be changed politically.

Perhaps we need to stop being self-serving filmmakers, as many perceive us, and start lobbying our political clients for change with a unified voice.

Steve, like you I have toiled on both sides but at a time when there was free movement between the sides – filmmakers and film bureaucrats switching roles regularly. For the unsuccessful applicant this meant that if s/he kept toiling on her project chances were, in a couple of years, there would be someone new to assess it; someone with different tastes and sensibilities to those of the assessors who knocked it back earlier. And the film bureaucracy gained also from having a continuous influx of industry professionals flowing through it with their different and divergent ideas and their first hand knowledge of what was going on in the industry at the time. Now we have, in too many key creative decision-making positions, permanently ensconced bureaucrats who have had no first hand experience for years (decades!) making decisions for which they are not in any way accountable. It does not matter how many failures they back. The same track record of failure in the real world would, back in the industry these film bureaucrats escaped from, render them unemployable. They know this and so must do whatever is necessary to see to it that they manage to keep their privileged position come hell or high water; regardless of how long is their list of failures. Why Mr Crean tolerates this state of affairs I do not know! Perhaps there are no votes in it! Perhaps whether or not we produce films that put bums on seats or of which we can be proud because of their contribution to Australian film culture is of less interest than having a system in place into which money is pumped and, on occasion, out of which good films emerge. If there is a change of government we can only hope that Senator Brandis pays more attention that does Mr Crean. We have all the money and talent we need to make fine films but we have too many firmly entrenched film bureaucrats who could use a break out in the actual world of film and television production.

Simon Crean couldn’t give a stuff about the arts in this country. Not to say he’s an ordinary politician, quite the opposite, its just the basket case that is the labour party is utterly preoccupied with survival and relevance. When Tony Abbott takes control we will see a winding back of Australian culture to a dark dark sad and pathetic reflection of its former self on a level which might actually make people take their culture seriously. We are in for a rocky road ahead..mark my words, if you think Labour are apathetic..wait until we begin to live under the leadership of the mad monk..it’ll make your head spin..you’ve been warned. That man is dangerous and unstable.