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.
9th
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.
10th 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.
23rd 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.
7th
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?”
15th 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 ?"
21st 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.
27th 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
26th 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?
10th 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
13th 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
14th 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
