Response re Confessions of a Gambler

It is unfortunate that Amanda Lane has sent out a letter to the industry which attempts to harm the film Confessions of a Gambler and the principal people involved with the project. She has forced us to deal with internal company matters in a public forum. But we think it’s important that the omissions and misrepresentations made by Amanda are addressed so that this matter is put to bed.

Amanda was involved in the directing of the principal photography of the film for 3 months, and her employment contract terminated in August 2006. At all times we respected and valued the important contribution Amanda made to the film and do not disagree with the statements she makes about the various specific things she did on the film. As early as August 2006 we had therefore agreed to give her a co-directing credit on the film. Rayda Jacobs has been contractually entitled to a “Director” credit since the beginning of 2006, but she agreed at that time to share a co-directing credit with Amanda. Rayda has also at all times legally had creative control of the film.

After a one year hiatus during the production of the film, we did some pick up shots and re-edited the film. Although we had at one stage contemplated Amanda’s involvement in a more extensive list of pick up shots, we informed her that we we had decided to scale down the pick up shots and that her services would not be required. As a courtesy to her, we sent her the revised cut of the film for comment in September 2007, and she wrote to us expressing how “disappointed” she was with the film, stating that the film was “a ghost of what the film can be. My main concern is that the cut is incoherent emotionally and narratively.

I feel that instead of rectifying the problems of the previous cut the problems have been exacerbated. The cut feels obscure and clumsy. Abeeda as a character is hard and unlikable. The edit itself is sloppy and looks like it was done in a rush. Continuity is all over the place and adds to the confusion.” She was quite clear in stating she had a very different idea of what to do with the film, although she knew this was never an option given Rayda’s creative control. Amanda suggested on 1 October 2007 that she may wish to remove her credit from the film entirely, and proposed that she be given the credit of “Director of Principal Photography” so that she was not negatively implicated by the final product. We were at that stage finalising the credits for the final master of the film, and we accepted her suggested revised credit (as per the attached letter), and gave her the option of removing her name entirely.

It is unfortunate that now the film is a success Amanda wishes to have a credit other than that suggested and agreed to by her in 2007. The cut of the film from September last year that she was so critical of, is the same as that appearing currently on circuit.

It was only in late January after the film was accepted into and had screened at the Dubai film festival that Amanda sought to return to her original co-directing credit, and it was only after the film received rave reviews locally that she has decided to take this matter to the press. Due to Amanda’s unstable attitudes to the film, we made a decision not to reinstate her co-directing credit in January.

Once Amanda had expressed her disappointment in the film, it placed us in an uncomfortable situation where we made the difficult decision not to involve her in the publicity campaign. We could not envisage someone with a negative view of the film being actively involved in the promotion of the film. When Amanda asked to have her credit changed back, Rayda asserted her contractual right to a “directed by” credit as she was entitled in terms of her contract, and was logical given there was no longer any other co-director.

We never asked Amanda to dislike the film or suggested taking her name off it. If one had none of this background one would think from Amanda’s letter that the film on screen is the one she made, that she loves it and we removed her credit arbitrarily. Instead, the film on screen was described by her as a “ghost of the film it could be”, and she needs to take responsibility for putting us through an awkward experience of having to change her credit at her asking.

Now that the film she thought was disappointing has been well received, she wants it both ways. We question the judgment, integrity and professionalism of someone who engages in a campaign of slander, where they omit material facts that they know will place them in a bad light. To have roped in some of her fellow crew members without giving them the full picture is an act of bad faith. To accuse people of acting unethically in a situation which you have brought on yourself is poor form indeed. We also question the statements of her close friend Zaheer Bhyat, who with full knowledge of the this background has actively circulated her email within the industry, and who has instituted legal proceedings against the company which we regard as having no foundation and are strenuously defending.

We are currently obtaining legal advice on the defamatory aspects of Amanda’s misrepresentations.

- Ross Garland, Rayda Jacobs, Costa Theo