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 7th
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 7th March article:
“Companies associated with director and film
producer Rosemary Blight picked up $2.2 million in production grants and travel
to the Toronto Film Festival.
Payments of $1.5 million were made to companies
associated with filmmaker Rachel Perkins and for a project in which a
"close family" member of Perkins was involved.
Payments were also made
to companies associated with the former chairman of Screen Australia, Glen
Boreham, companies associated with deputy chair Deanne Weir and companies
associated with another director, Richard Keddie.”
Is the
Australian Director’s Guild free to ask, in public, the kinds of questions
implicit in Michael West’s article, without fear that its funding from Screen
Australia might be cut off?
No surprises here. The ADG lost all credibility the moment it accepted funding from the funding bodies it was set up to protect directors from.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the ADG stand for? Yes, the Australian Directors Guild.
DeleteI mean, what does it stand for in terms of values, principles, policy positions?
Visit the ADG website or Facebook and sure there are plenty of motherhood statements but I would like to know what the ADG actually stands for, what it will fight to the death for.
The elephant in the room
ReplyDeleteElephant! I don't see any elephant! The members of the SA board who keep voting themselves huge sums of money just happen to be the cleverest filmmakers in town and deserve the money they give themselves :-)
DeleteWhy wouldn't the ADG publish this? I don't understand! I read most of it in SMH months ago. Hardly news!
ReplyDeleteThe ADG won't publish this because it opens up all sorts of cans of worms as to why they are in effect completely useless in fighting for and dealing with directors rights in this country. Easier to marginalise James than to address any concerns, concerns that directly impact on directors. No, that would mean an examination of this dumbarse cottage industry that protects certain people, gate keeps Government money channelling it to the same people, and makes sure no decent film or TV work is ever made. A sorry, pathetic state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteYes, a sad state of affairs. The elephant has been in the room a long time.
ReplyDeletePresident Lyndon Johnson said of some trouble-making dictator, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." The AG was set up to cause trouble to the Screen Australia's of our film world but has been bought off with filthy lucre. It is now inside the tent, pissing out, and of zero risk to the status quo. Screen Australia (and the other funding bodies) should be scared of the AGD; not the other way around.
Omerta rules
ReplyDeleteHere we go again! A bunch of loser filmmakers bitching and complaining because Screen Australia does not recognise their genius. Get a life you fucking wankers.
ReplyDeleteSo, let me get this right, the films and TV output of members of the board are all works of genius whilst the rest of us who would like Screen Australia to be transparent and accountable are 'wankers'!
DeleteNepotism is nepotism. End of story.
DeleteYou are assuming that Screen Australia knows what genius is. They don't. Wouldn't know it if it crawled on their face and barfed up their nose.
DeleteNepotism is nepotism. End of story.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions I'd like to get answers to before I decide whether or not to renew my membership with the ADG: (1) Why did the ADG refuse to publish James Ricketson's opinion piece and (2) If I get into dispute with Screen Australia will the ADG support me or its funding partner?
ReplyDeleteJust as journalists shouldn't get too close to politicians lest they be influenced, compromised, by their association, so too should members of a union not get too close to one of the organisations (in this case Screen Australia) it could well be engaged in an industrial dispute with at some point in the future. Screen Australia's grants to the ADG amount to 'hush money' and make any dispute between a filmmaker and Screen Australia a foregone conclusion as far as the ADG is concerned. Securing next year's funding will, inevitably, take precedence over defending a director member of the ADG. This is the way of the world. The ADG has sold its soul to the devil and will die a slow and painful death as a result when its members realise that they count for less than maintaining good relations with funding bodies.
DeleteSurely someone from the ADG must be reading this and be in a position to answer my questions?
DeleteI wonder which board member’s turn it is next to be awarded a huge sum by fellow board members as they leave the room, of course, whilst the vote takes place. Are you fucking blind Senator Brandis?
ReplyDeleteNepotism has been rampant at Screen Australia since its inception and continues to this day with a board stacked with filmmakers who vote themselves money time and time again with impunity. No-one dare say anything for fear of being blackballed, marginalized and generally finding themselves on the outer with the Screen Australia mafia. The sooner there is an independent investigation into SA’s nefarious ways the better.
Delete