# 6 The Australian Director’s Guild and self censorship?

An edited account of my attempts to get the Australian Director’s Guild to publish online, in Screen Director, a piece inspired by an article already published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

9^th April

JAMES: I am not a member any longer of the ADG but would like to make a contribution to the magazine. However, before I do I should let you know that it is one intended to stimulate debate about the appropriateness of Screen Australia board members voting large sums of money to themselves and to companies they are associated with. Given that Screen Australia partially funds ASDA it may be that part of the deal is that there is to be no biting of the hand that feeds it. If this is so, I won't bother. However, I think that this issue, spoken about in hushed tones behind closed doors, should be debated in public.

10^th April

ADG:  We’d be happy to receive anything you’d care to write, however because you’re not a current member of the guild we would like to read whatever you write before publishing.

23^rd April

ADG: FYI the reinstated Screen Director magazine has been primarily a communication tool for our members and as such presenting discussions about directors and their work from a craft perspective; updating members on activities as well as the series on the history of the ADG written by Stephen Wallace.

7^th May

JAMES: The ADG website describes the Guild’s online magazine, Screen Director, as one that

“publishes articles and podcasts focusing on craft issues, policy and aesthetics of directing for the screen. It is published by ADG…and collects content from ADG members and other screen directing sources.”

My article relates to Screen Australia policy and raises questions that I believe to be of relevance to members of the ADG; questions worthy of discussion and debate.

It has been suggested that Screen Director cannot publish my article because I am not a member. My question is a simple one:

“If I become a member of the ADG, will Screen Director publish my article?”

15^th May

JAMES:  I remain mystified as to why my question regarding becoming a member of the ADG, and hence eligible to have my article published, is such a difficult one to answer.

Let me rephrase it:

"Is any member of the ADG entitled to publish an opinion piece in 'Screen Director' that raises questions, for debate, about Screen Australia modus operandi and policies ?"

21^st May

JAMES: The ADG board's silence suggests that not even a fully paid up member of the ADG would be able to publish, in Screen Director, an article which raises doubts, invites debate, about the policies and modus operandi of Screen Australia. 

Given that the Australian Director's Guild receives funding from Screen Australia, the question arises:

"Does the ADG practice self-censorship so as not to offend Screen Australia?"

I have taken off my filmmaker's hat and am now asking this question with my journalist's hat on.

27^th May

JAMES: One of the ADG’s roles, when it was established, was to ‘speak truth to power’ collectively, so that no individual director would have to suffer as a result of his or her criticism of the powers that be.  Given my experience with the ADG this past 7 weeks it is difficult to escape the conclusion that ‘power’, in this instance Screen Australia, has intimidated the ADG into silence:

“Screen Australia funding is contingent on the ADG not raising questions about our modus operandi in any public forum.”

Given the ADG’s reluctance to publish my article (despite it being based heavily on an article already published in the Sydney Morning Herald!) I have decided  to start up a blog on which such issues can be freely discussed by filmmakers. My first contribution to it can be found at:

http://screennewsaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/1-should-australian-film-industry-be_26.html

cheers

James

26^th June

Dear members of the ADG board

It is now 8 weeks since I last heard from the ADG, despite my having written a few emails – in the hope that the ADG might, at the very least, engage in some dialogue about the board’s decision not to publish my piece!

Is this because the ADG board has decided that it does not want me as a member? Is it because the ADG simply does not want any member who might rock the boat by writing an opinion piece for ‘Screen Director’ that might upset the funding bodies upon which the ADG relies for its continued existence?

Or is there some other reason for the ADG board’s decision not to communicate with me in any way?

Perhaps you, collectively, think it perfectly OK for Screen Australia board members to regularly vote large sums of money to each other. An argument could certainly be mounted in defense of this rather regular occurrence: Several members of the board are experienced filmmakers and there is no reason why they should not be able to access Screen Australia funds.

Fair enough. That may be the ADG board’s opinion. I have a different opinion, as the piece I wrote intimates. Or, to put it a different way, I believe that there are questions that need to be asked, and a debate that should be had in the open.  Not behind closed doors.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the position I have taken  (asking valid questions) is one that the ADG board cannot (and will not) tolerate. It is likewise difficult to escape the conclusion that the reason for this is that the AGD fears it may suffer from a backlash from Screen Australia if it were to publish such a piece in ‘Screen Director’?

Of course, there may be another reason for the ADG board’s decision. If there is, why not articulate it?  Is the ADG opposed to the idea of vigorous (and perhaps sometimes heated) debate about issues that concern us all?

10^th July

Dear Members of the ADG Board

I have, for many weeks now, expected an email from the Board along the lines of,

‘Dear James, our apologies for this late response. We have been flat out with a number of pressing issues and had little time to discuss the matters you have raised….”

Clearly, such an email is not going to arrive. You have decided, fellow-filmmakers all, that I am not worthy of any response at all. This is an extraordinary a state of affairs and symptomatic of a trend in Australia now in which freedom of speech is being steadily undermined by a government that does not believe in it. Whilst there are some – doctors, for instance, who are prepared to face off the government and refuse to be cowed into silence regarding the abuse of refugees, there are others that are engaging in their own form of self-censorship to remain below the radar and not risk the patronage of the government or the instrumentalities it funds.

On the basis of my experience with the Australian Director’s Guild this past few months, the ADG Board has decided that it will not, under any circumstances, rock the boat.

If not the right to free speech, are there any principles at all for which the Australian Director’s Guild is prepared to fight – even if such a fight would antagonize the film funding bodies who fund the ADG?

cheers

James

13^th July

from Ray Argall

Dear James,

As I outlined in my email to you on 23rd April the ADG Screen Director magazine is primarily a communication tool for our members, and like the ADG enews it's role is not to criticise either directors or film funding organisations as an editorial (we do that directly and in discussions with them). The layout for Screen Director online is a series of links to the articles, podcasts and video entries we’ve posted, it is not where we conduct debate about our policy or industrial forums.

In the meantime the ADG facebook page is used as an open forum for comments by members and others, and as you have already posted on this site regarding your issues with Screen Australia and your thoughts about the ADG, I feel your situation has been given appropriate and open airing by us. I’m also pleased to see you’ve opened your own blog that other filmmakers can access.  

Your accusations about hindering free speech and self-censorship at the ADG are misguided. I don't appreciate your dispersions against the ADG and there is no truth in what you say about the ADG avoiding confrontations with Screen Australia because of any funding assistance we may receive from them. As I have said before, you are welcome to view all of the submissions the ADG have made to Screen Australia (as available freely on our website) and judge for yourself whether we are representing the best interests of our members and Australian screen directors or not. 

best regards

14^th July

Ray

Thanks for your email.

I can only re-iterate what I wrote at the outset. Screen Director claims to be looking for articles “focusing on craft issues, policy and the aesthetics of directing for the screen.” In reality Screen Director is NOT looking for articles that focus on policy.  Why not simply drop the word ‘policy from the ADG’s description of what Screen Director is looking for?

As far as I can tell – in the case of both Screen Director and the ADG’s Facebook page – there has been no attempt this past year to publish anything about policy or to encourage debate about policy issues amongst ADG members.  Screen Director is not a forum for ideas; it is an open invitation for film directors to talk about themselves and their work. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but surely such articles  could be mixed up with others designed to encourage debate about issues of importance not just to directors but to Australian film at large?

Why not present ADG members with new ideas and, perhaps, challenges to some of their preconceptions about why Australian film is important and worthy of defense in the face of a government that has demonstrated (and demonstrates daily) its contempt for the arts?

If such articles, such ideas, such debates, upset the status quo, so be it. The status quo constantly needs to be challenged and upset.

In the past few months Senator Brandis has made it clear he believes he has the right to interfere in whatever way he chooses with the way in which arts funding is allocated. Has there been a peep or protest from the ADG? Why has no-one written about this in either Screen Director or on Facebook? Why s there no debate? Is the topic of no relevance or significance to directors? And what happens if Brandis comes after the Australian film next in a big way? What arguments will the ADG be able to present to validate or justify the continued existence of Australian film?

I believe that the stiffing of debate that lies at the heart of the ADG’s decision to prohibit the publication of articles such as mine is a mistake. There should be room within the ADG (both Screen Director and Facebook) for a cornucopia of ideas to be tossed around, debated.

cheers

James

# 5 PARTISAN Who is responsible for allowing such a poor screenplay to go into production?

SCREEN NEWS AUSTRALIA is an open forum where filmmakers can discuss any topic related to film, TV and all the other platforms available to screen content producers to tell their stories. This is a space for civil discussion and debate. There will be no censorship other than in the case of clear defamation but please no personal abuse.

The basic premise of PARTISAN is terrific.

“A zealot collects young children, born of vulnerable mothers, trains and indoctrinates them to become assassins to protect his ‘tribe’ in a dystopian world.”

Gregori, the dictator/guru who heads up the small commune has the following advice for 11 year old child assassin and protégé, Alexander.

“Sometimes to tell the truth is the hardest thing to do.”

The truth about PARTISAN, hard and painful for all concerned, is that the screenplay is so bad the question must be asked:

“How could so many film bureaucrats at Screen Victoria and Screen Australia not recognize the blindingly obvious script problems and declare, before investing in the film,  ‘This script is not ready to go into production’.”

We have been here before, too many times – looking on with professional horror at filmic train wrecks, wondering how a worse-than-mediocre-screenplay could be given the thumbs up as ready to go into production by a bevvy of film bureaucrats whose job, surely, it is to be able to discern the difference is between a good and a bad screenplay.

How and why has PARTISAN failed so badly to realize its potential?

Have Screen Australia and Screen Victoria done Ariel Kleiman a favour by allowing him to take such an undercooked screenplay into production?

Is it possible to ask such questions; to seek answers in hopes that some lessons might be learnt and the same mistakes not made, as they tend to be with Australian film, over and over again?

Alas, history suggests that the answer is ‘no’. There will be no dialogue or debate within the film community or between filmmakers and the funding bodies that invested in the film. There will be no post-mortem on the corpse that is PARTISAN and the same film bureaucrats who greenlit it will continue to decide which films are developed and receive production funding and which are allowed to wither on the development vine.

Is it not time, has it not been time, for a long time, for film bureaucrats who ‘greelight’ films to be held accountable for their decisions? Especially when these decisions, time and time again, result in films that audiences stay away from in droves?

“Without rules we will become like them”

So says Gregori (Vincent Cassel) to his ‘son’, protégé and apprentice assassin, Alexander (Jeremy Chabriel) in a film that habitually steers clear of dramatizing that which can be put into expository dialogue.

But who is or are ‘them’?

Gregori again:

“It is so important to cherish the things you love. To protect them. Be the elder brother, their protector and destroy anyone who tries  to do them wrong.”

This is a solid premise for a character (even a mentally deranged cult leader) to behave in a particular way – including the assassination of those who wish to destroy the things and people the character loves. However, in order for the premise to carry dramatic weight we, the audience, need to know in what way those being assassinated pose a threat to Gregor’s self-contained utopian/dystopian world.

In the brief glimpses we have of those marked for assassination they seem to be as poor and powerless as the members of Gregori’s ‘tribe’ and, if they have committed some heinous crime, the screenwriter is not going to let us know what it is.

Because there is no antagonist –Alexander (protagonist) is left by the screenplay with no choice but to act in a vacuum – to perform senseless killings for no apparent reason and to achieve no identifiable end.

OK, maybe this is the point of the film. For all his rhetoric about protecting those he loves, perhaps Gregori is just a nutter who is using ‘ideology’ as an excuse to carry out, though the children, his desire to kill innocent men? OK, I can accept this as a premise but what kind of audience did Screen Australia and Screen Victoria think would be prepared to pay $19.50 to see a film about an amoral and mentally unbalanced psychopath?

It has been suggested that Gregori is ‘charismatic’. If he were, perhaps the film might have worked but he is (for me at least) totally lacking in the kind of charisma that makes it possible for cult leaders to acquire followers prepared to kill for them.

Yes, of course it is easy to be wise after the event but it seems to me that anyone with a modicum of experience in the craft of screenwriting would have seen that the draft of PARTISAN that was taken into production was nowhere near being ready. It was a draft about which  Screen Victoria and Screen Australia could well have declared:

“This screenplay has great potential but it is nowhere near being ready to go into production. We look forward to reading subsequent drafts.”

If I focus on the film funding bodies here it is because they are ultimately the gate-keepers that decide which films get made and which do not. They have enormous power and the question arises: “Do they use their power wisely?”

Too often they do not. And never are they held accountable for their decisions.

# 4 SCREEN AUSTRALIA’S GAME OF MUSICAL CHAIRS

The Australian Director’s Guild declined to publish the following opinion piece in its online magazine ‘Screen Director’.

As there was nowhere else I could publish it I decided to start Screen News Australia - a blog on which pieces such as this, written by anyone with a point of view they feel passionately about, can be published, and where dialogue and debate are encouraged about the issues we all, as screen story-tellers, care about.

SCREEN AUSTRALIA’S GAME OF MUSICAL CHAIRS

On 7^th March an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled:

“Screen Australia Board Meetings Must Be a Game of Musical Chairs.

Written by Michael West, this article raises questions that are worthy of debate within the community of filmmakers who are, in one way or another, reliant on Screen Australia to develop and finance their film and TV projects.

No such debate has occurred.

Why?

The article begins with the following sentence:

“Companies associated with actor and film producer Claudia Karvan were paid $10.5 million by Screen Australia last year. Karvan is on the board of Screen Australia.”

It then goes on to list the large amounts of money that members of the Screen Australia board have voted to invest in the projects of fellow board members in the form of development and production funds.

“Companies associated with fellow director Joan Peters, a media and entertainment lawyer, received just under $14.8 million in production grants, consultancy fees, travel grants and assorted transactions with Screen Australia.”

The question of whether or not it is appropriate for members of the Screen Australia Board to continually vote large sums of money to themselves and their associates needs to be debated. 

Why is there no debate?

Is it because this is an elephant in the room that filmmakers dare not speak of in public for fear of retribution?

Given the obvious dangers inherent in Screen Australia board members voting to fund each others projects, what mechanisms does Screen Australia have in place to mitigate against the possibility of corruption?

Are questions such as these of concern to members of Australian Director’s Guild members? If so, has there been any discussion, debate, about them?

Are filmmakers free to be critical in pubic of Screen Australia without fear of retribution?

A few more paragraphs from Michael West’s 7^th March article:

“Companies associated with director and film producer Rosemary Blight picked up $2.2 million in production grants and travel to the Toronto Film Festival.

Payments of $1.5 million were made to companies associated with filmmaker Rachel Perkins and for a project in which a "close family" member of Perkins was involved.

Payments were also made to companies associated with the former chairman of Screen Australia, Glen Boreham, companies associated with deputy chair Deanne Weir and companies associated with another director, Richard Keddie.”

Is the Australian Director’s Guild free to ask, in public, the kinds of questions implicit in Michael West’s article, without fear that its funding from Screen Australia might be cut off?