Why economics and politics ARE important to Cinematography.com

[Brian Dzyak]

Here is an example of the inherent danger is allowing Governments to be involved in ANY way in what movies get made:

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/22/2209593/drama-unfolds-as-violent-robert.html#ixzz0olggYKPM

 

Drama unfolds as violent Robert Rodriguez film seeks tax break from Texas

 

 

By AMAN BATHEJA

 

abatheja@star-telegram.com

 

Should Texas taxpayers provide financial support for a violence-packed movie that plays off the tensions gripping the state and the nation in the raging debate over illegal immigration?

 

That's an emerging question as a new movie from Austin filmmaker Robert Rodriguez generates controversy that's reaching all the way to Gov. Rick Perry's office at a time when the state faces massive financial problems and is embroiled in the immigration debate.

 

Rodriguez is finishing up his latest film, Machete, about an assassin from Mexico working as a day laborer in Texas and battling a Mexican drug lord, as well as politicians opposed to illegal immigration. He says the controversy is overblown.

 

The movie, which uses the Texas Capitol as a backdrop in at least one scene, is generating plenty of buzz, not just for the immigration controversy but also for a star-studded cast that includes Robert De Niro, Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Alba, Don Johnson, Cheech Marin and Steven Seagal. Quentin Tarantino is the producer of the movie, set to hit theaters Sept. 3.

 

Several conservative bloggers have called the film inflammatory in light of growing tension over an Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration. And some are outraged that the Texas Film Commission may grant Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios tax incentives for shooting the film in the state.

 

"We need to get the funding at the state level stripped out of the film commission if they do not stop this," conservative radio host Alex Jones said.

 

Austin-based Troublemaker Studios applied for the tax incentives before the start of shooting. Under a state law passed in 2009, the Texas Film Commission can deny the incentives if a film includes content that's inappropriate or portrays Texas or Texans negatively. The commission is part of Perry's office.

 

"No film/production company can receive any state funding until we have reviewed the final product," said Allison Castle, a spokeswoman for Perry's office, in an e-mail. "At this time, no funds have been released to Troublemaker Studios."

 

Rodriguez helped draw more scrutiny to Machete on May 5 when he released a fake trailer that framed the movie as a kind of revenge fantasy for illegal immigrants. At the start of the trailer, star Danny Trejo says he has "a special Cinco de Mayo message to Arizona."

 

Rodriguez later said the trailer was a joke.

 

"The movie is very over-the-top satirical, and it's only because of what's happened in Arizona that some scenes actually feel at all grounded in reality, which is pretty nuts and says more about Arizona than any fictional movie," Rodriguez told Harry Knowles of the movie news website Ain't It Cool News.

 

The film's distributor, 20th Century Fox, did not return calls seeking comment.

 

State incentives

 

Texas Film Commission Director Bob Hudgins said the unease about Machete is similar to the concerns raised over a planned film last year about the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound.

 

Hudgins reviewed the script of Waco and thought it was historically inaccurate. He talked to the filmmakers about his concerns, and they chose to never officially apply for the incentives, he said.

 

The commission has yet to reject an official application for film incentives based on content, Hudgins said.

 

Hudgins said he saw a script for Machete around the time the filmmakers applied for the incentives. He didn't talk to the studio about the script because it didn't involve any nonfiction characters, he said.

 

"There were no real Texans involved in the story line," Hudgins said. "That may change. We don't know."

 

Hudgins said the language in the state law is vague enough that the commission could reject a film's application even if the film is completely fictional.

 

Hudgins is reserving judgment on Machete until he sees the final version.

 

Thanking Perry

 

Oddly, Machete may have been shot in a different state if not for Perry, who signed a bill last year giving his office the ability to grant larger tax incentives to lure filmmakers to shoot in Texas.

 

Perry signed the bill at an April 2009 ceremony at Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios. Rodriguez told The Associated Press at the time that, without the bill, he would have had to move the production of projects including Machete to another state.

 

"Thanks to this bill, I don't have to go shoot out of the state," Rodriguez said.

 

AMAN BATHEJA, 817-390-7695

 

 

 

What we see here is that politics is now getting involved in the decision on whether to provide tax-incentives to a particular film or not. So, if a particular government (or an individual with veto power) doesn't like a specific project or the politics of it, that would mean that only favorable movies would receive financing help and the unfavorable ones wouldn't. <_<

 

Tax incentives are bad bad bad bad bad.... :(

[Guest]

Cutting services: Of course Dems criticize when Republicans cut services. Dems/Progressives believe in a functioning society and democracy that works for everyone while the Republicans/Regressives work for a society that only favors the wealthy. Again, how is this hypocritical of the stated Progressive position?

 

You're the one that has to be kidding me, you are going to tell us all that democrats have never cut social services at the state or federal level, and ONLY republicans do this? Like I said I'm not a fan of either, but really now, Clinton never once cut any social program in 8 years. P-lease.

 

Dems are FORCED to play this game just for a chance to change things. Until we have some fundamental change in how we elect our representatives, the choice is to either not take any Corporate money and likely lose the election (and what good does that do anyone?) or play the game and try to get on the inside to fix things.

 

Baloney. The democrats now control the White House, The House Of Representatives, and the Senate. They have done sweet bugger all on the campaign reform finance file, nothing. They are right now as you point out, "on the inside," so when does the fixing start?

 

In Canada corporations are not allowed to donate money to political parties and individuals can only donate $1200.00/year. The money for campaigns comes from public funds. I am waiting for the democrats in the USA to follow this example if they are as idealistic as you claim they are.

 

Remind me once again how much money Obama hauled in from giant corporations?

 

 

Well, just about all of the Movies-of-the-Weeks, for starters. Quite a few episodics and a good number of features. If you've lost any of those, they certainly didn't come back here. Most of the "North American" work picked up and left here a few years ago for other locations in Europe, Eurasia, and Asia.

 

Rubbish, pure rubbish, there hasn't been a US MOW shot in Canada in ages. I'm sure there where a lot at one stage, but the networks have cut their orders for MOWs down by 90% or more.

 

There is some US stuff shooting in Canada sure yes. All of the dept heads and lead actors come from the USA, so none of them are out of work. The post is all done in the USA as well, so no impact there. So a few grips, carpenters, and caterers pick up a few bucks on this side of the border, it's hardly worth fighting over.

 

 

Ok, I'm STILL laughing at that absurd statement. :lol: I do thank you. A bit of a rough day at work so I needed the laugh. :D

 

I guess the truth hurts? The hypocrisy in the democratic party is there for all to see, but I can understand why you choose to ignore it.

 

R,

[Guest]

Here is an example of the inherent danger is allowing Governments to be involved in ANY way in what movies get made:

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/22/2209593/drama-unfolds-as-violent-robert.html#ixzz0olggYKPM

 

What we see here is that politics is now getting involved in the decision on whether to provide tax-incentives to a particular film or not. So, if a particular government (or an individual with veto power) doesn't like a specific project or the politics of it, that would mean that only favorable movies would receive financing help and the unfavorable ones wouldn't. <_<

 

Tax incentives are bad bad bad bad bad.... :(

 

Then why did Rodriguez choose to shoot there? Did the state of Texas force him to make the movie there? Did they force him to take the tax credits?

 

I do agree with you that this sort of thing is quite scary:

 

"No film/production company can receive any state funding until we have reviewed the final product,"

 

That is a clear over stepping of gov't authority, yes. In Canada films qualify for the tax credits regardless of the content and the gov't can not say boo about it. That's the way it should be.

 

Now that said this issue did explode in Canada a few years back. A movie was made here called, Young People F--king, and it touched off a fire storm once the public and a few other wise sleeping politicians realized public money went into the movie via the tax credits and other financing from TeleFILM.

 

So a bill was launched to allow the gov't to deny the tax credits if the content of the movie was deemed too offensive. Ok fine, but who was going to make the decision on what is "offensive." It is purely subjective.

 

Anyway an election was called and the bill died.

 

Imagine if The Dogfather was denied its tax credits because a gov't employee decided that it made fun of Italian Canadians and was therefore "offensive."

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

You're the one that has to be kidding me, you are going to tell us all that democrats have never cut social services at the state or federal level, and ONLY republicans do this? Like I said I'm not a fan of either, but really now, Clinton never once cut any social program in 8 years. P-lease.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm still missing the point you're trying to make here. Clinton is a Democrat and, for the most part, Democrats are FOR social programs, not against them. So him not cutting any isn't hypocritical in the slightest.

 

Please elaborate if you can.

 

On the other hand, we have Republicans here who claim to represent the American people, but then go on to push policies the favor Corporations and shipping jobs over our borders. There are also other egregious examples, such as the coal miners who recently were killed because of Republican deregulation and union busting... and of course the on-going oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico which was enabled because of Republican deregulation of the oil industry (making safety mechanisms voluntary instead of mandatory).

 

 

Baloney. The democrats now control the White House, The House Of Representatives, and the Senate. They have done sweet bugger all on the campaign reform finance file, nothing. They are right now as you point out, "on the inside," so when does the fixing start?

Well, that's a good question. :) For starters, I would like to point out that it takes quite a lot of time to fix thirty+ years of economic and social damage caused by Republican/Reagan/Friedman ideology. Anyone expecting it to be fixed in a couple months is delusional.

 

Also, if you've paid any attention to our politics, the Republican Party has taken on the role of "NO!" to EVERYTHING. Absolutely everything. If the Democrats are for it, they are against it. Period... even when THEY (the Republicans) first suggest it! Republicans here have been purposefully stonewalling government. To what end? Probably so they can have people like you say things like you did above.

 

But yes, there is a lot to be done(and undone) and that takes time.

 

In Canada corporations are not allowed to donate money to political parties and individuals can only donate $1200.00/year. The money for campaigns comes from public funds. I am waiting for the democrats in the USA to follow this example if they are as idealistic as you claim they are.

 

In the USA, the Conservative Supreme Court just allowed full rights to Corporations to "donate" as much as they want to. And ANY Corporation from ANYWHERE around the world is now allowed to do this. The very real implication is that any "terrorist" organization with cash and an agenda can influence our elections and policies by simply throwing enough money at the media or at a particular campaign. Who allowed this to happen? Republicans. Conservatives have one thing on their minds... absolute power under the guise of "freedom."

 

Remind me once again how much money Obama hauled in from giant corporations?

Quite a bit. But then again, in order to get into this system, you kind of have to unless you're a multi-billionaire on your own.

 

Does that make him a hypocrite? Not necessarily because he's not really fighting for the rights of Corporations to have complete autonomy. Could he do MORE to fight against this growing Fascism? Definitely, but as I've said, with the Conservative policies from the past thirty years to contend with, changing the system back to something rational doesn't happen overnight.

 

 

 

 

 

Rubbish, pure rubbish, there hasn't been a US MOW shot in Canada in ages. I'm sure there where a lot at one stage, but the networks have cut their orders for MOWs down by 90% or more.

But you DID have them and still have a few... the few that are still made. I'm not sure if a lot of MOWs are being made right now and those that are, certainly aren't being made in Los Angeles where the Corporations are headquartered.

 

 

 

There is some US stuff shooting in Canada sure yes. All of the dept heads and lead actors come from the USA, so none of them are out of work. The post is all done in the USA as well, so no impact there. So a few grips, carpenters, and caterers pick up a few bucks on this side of the border, it's hardly worth fighting over.

A few [et al] crew? That's like 90% of the crew! Take away cast and department heads and that leaves dozens if not hundreds of crew who have jobs they wouldn't have if not for currency advantages and tax bribes. Not worth fighting for? Tell that to the hundreds of LA-based crew who established homes and lives in So. Cal. BECAUSE the business WAS built and centered here...who went on to lose their livelihoods, homes, and in some cases, marriages/families because Corporations were out to save a few bucks on manufacturing. It's only a little bit of money if you're the one getting it. But it can mean life and death if you're the one losing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the truth hurts? The hypocrisy in the democratic party is there for all to see, but I can understand why you choose to ignore it.

 

R,

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't hurt at all. :) Still waiting to hear documented facts on how the hypocrisy of the Democrats rivals the Republicans. I'm patient. Keep trying. B)

[Guest]

I'm sorry, I'm still missing the point you're trying to make here. Clinton is a Democrat and, for the most part, Democrats are FOR social programs, not against them. So him not cutting any isn't hypocritical in the slightest.

 

Please elaborate if you can.

 

What I am saying is that democrats when they have been in power have also cut funding to social programs. Yet when Republicans do the same thing, they (democrats) cry fowl!

 

Well, that's a good question. :) For starters, I would like to point out that it takes quite a lot of time to fix thirty+ years of economic and social damage caused by Republican/Reagan/Friedman ideology. Anyone expecting it to be fixed in a couple months is delusional.

 

I don't see the problem, Obama has been in power more than a year now, he has majorities in the house and senate. The democrats can make it illegal to receive money from corporations right now if they really wanted to. You are just making excuses for their failings Brian. Fact is that the Democrats are as hooked on corporate donations as the Republicans are and they don't want to give it up.

 

Also, if you've paid any attention to our politics, the Republican Party has taken on the role of "NO!" to EVERYTHING. Absolutely everything. If the Democrats are for it, they are against it. Period... even when THEY (the Republicans) first suggest it! Republicans here have been purposefully stonewalling government. To what end? Probably so they can have people like you say things like you did above.

 

Why does it matter, the democrats control the white house and congress, if the democrats are serious about what they are doing, crack the whip and get on with it. Again...excuses, excuses, excuses. Why do they care what the Republicans think or say?

 

Ok then, let's check back on campaign finance reform in three years at the end of this first term for Obama. I will predict for right now what he will have accomplished on this file in the next three years. Nothing.

 

Quite a bit. But then again, in order to get into this system, you kind of have to unless you're a multi-billionaire on your own.

 

Does that make him a hypocrite? Not necessarily because he's not really fighting for the rights of Corporations to have complete autonomy. Could he do MORE to fight against this growing Fascism? Definitely, but as I've said, with the Conservative policies from the past thirty years to contend with, changing the system back to something rational doesn't happen overnight.

 

Uh, yes as a matter of fact it does make him a hypocrite, quite a huge one in fact. But hey your dictionary I'm guessing defines hypocrite differently than what mine does.

 

A few [et al] crew? That's like 90% of the crew! Take away cast and department heads and that leaves dozens if not hundreds of crew who have jobs they wouldn't have if not for currency advantages and tax bribes. Not worth fighting for? Tell that to the hundreds of LA-based crew who established homes and lives in So. Cal. BECAUSE the business WAS built and centered here...who went on to lose their livelihoods, homes, and in some cases, marriages/families because Corporations were out to save a few bucks on manufacturing. It's only a little bit of money if you're the one getting it. But it can mean life and death if you're the one losing it.

 

So if you guys are that mad about it why don't you stop it? Get congress to pass a law making it illegal for US film companies to shoot any where outside of Southern California. And that would include New Mexico and New York City as well.

 

You folks talk tough in S. Cal but you are not doing a whole lot about "runaway production" other than whining about it non-stop in internet forums.

 

In my case I've managed to bring two feature film shoots to within an hours drive of my house here in Nowheresville Ontario. And I employed several Americans on my last feature.

 

R,

[Thomas James]

It is true that Bill Clinton signed welfare reform to limit welfare assistance to a maximum of 5 years. However this is a dangerous shredding of the safety net because economic depressions can last longer than 5 years. But one must remember that Republicans are a lot more rabid when it comes to destroying welfare. Govenor Arnold Schwarzneggar wants to eliminate welfare right in the middle of an economic recession and it is only the Democrats are opposing him.

[Guest]

It is true that Bill Clinton signed welfare reform to limit welfare assistance to a maximum of 5 years.

 

Yes, but Clinton is a Democrat so it's ok.

 

R,

[Thomas James]

I never said it was okay for Bill Clinton to sign on to welfare reform simply because of the fact that a depression can last longer than 5 years. However it can be fair to say that the Democrats are the lesser evil compared to Republicans who not only want welfare eliminated but want the welfare recipients to pay back every dime in welfare benefits they received plus interest in order to fund yet another tax break for the rich. Of course there is a danger of the lesser evil.

For example during the debate between Republican Michael Savage and Democrat Jerry Brown, Savage proposed armed guards at every emergency room in order to prevent illegal aliens from receiving life saving medical treatment. Brown claimed that it would be unethical to let even illegal aliens bleed to death but agreed that funding for emergency rooms should be reduced.

[Brian Dzyak]

Yes, but Clinton is a Democrat so it's ok.

 

R,

 

 

True, Clinton was a ConservaDem. We have too many of those fools who claim to be pro-American/Constitution but are behind Regressive/Conservative policies. Richard wants me to say that USA Democrats ARE hypocrites just as much as Republicans are and that just is NOT true... for the most part. YES, some of them are. They get into office and then support the pro-Corporate pro-Fascism agenda, but there are SOME representatives who aren't that. True, not enough, but there are some.

 

But again, to get into a position to change things in the first place means taking Corporate money. Then it means having to fight the ridiculous rules that require 60 votes because of the egregious corruption of rules by the Republican Party.

 

So yes, we DO have ConservaDems who are liars claiming to care about our Constitution and "the People" but who vote pro-Corporate just like the Fascist Republican Party. But there are many who don't do that. We DID get a bit of Health Care reform passed after all. What the means is that not all is lost. The People and the Constitution DO still have a chance against the Fascist Agenda of the Economic and Religious Right in the USA.

 

But as said, it takes time to fix thirty-ish years of political, economic, and social damage. Reagan, two Bushes, and Clinton did considerable damage to our nation and economy. To expect that it be "fixed" in a short year is unrealistic.

 

Anyone who would dare argue against anything I'm saying, I would first ask them to defend the BP disaster in the Gulf. The Laissez Faire system of government CAUSED that environmental and economic disaster. We NEED regulations to preserve democracy and freedom and a strong economy for us and the world.

[Guest]

Richard wants me to say that USA Democrats ARE hypocrites just as much as Republicans are and that just is NOT true... for the most part. YES, some of them are.

 

This will be more than good enough Brian. :D

 

Anyone who would dare argue against anything I'm saying, I would first ask them to defend the BP disaster in the Gulf. The Laissez Faire system of government CAUSED that environmental and economic disaster. We NEED regulations to preserve democracy and freedom and a strong economy for us and the world.

 

I 110% agree with you. The USA could of avoided bank bailouts if they had followed Canada's example and regulated the banks in the first place.

 

The oil disaster in the gulf is most definitely partly to blame on gov't. Who allowed them to drill a well 1 mile below the surface? Who allowed them to not have any of the gear on hand to fix a leak if the well failed? The questions go on and on.

 

I'm with you all the way on this one Brian!

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

This will be more than good enough Brian. :D

 

 

 

I 110% agree with you. The USA could of avoided bank bailouts if they had followed Canada's example and regulated the banks in the first place.

 

The oil disaster in the gulf is most definitely partly to blame on gov't. Who allowed them to drill a well 1 mile below the surface? Who allowed them to not have any of the gear on hand to fix a leak if the well failed? The questions go on and on.

 

I with you all the way on this one Brian!

 

R,

 

 

Well, here's a good part of the reason the Gulf situation was allowed to occur. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-10514681/quayle-panel-bullying-epa.html It was Dan Quayle's commission that knocked down the first dominoes toward deregulating safety.

[Mei Lewis]

As an outsider (I live in the UK) it's interesting to watch this thread because it feels like I'm seeing a debate Americans usually have in private, among themselves.

 

One thing that surprises me is the strong sentiment some people seem to have that California and LA in particular should somehow be entitled to have a lot of film production based there. I don't know if that's how people really feel, that's just the impression I get reading this thread and I could be misunderstanding.

 

It seems ironic that people in LA would complain about overseas production taking work from them when LA and the US in general has been accused of exactly the same thing in reverse all around the world for decades. Some countries even have laws requiring locally produced content because they're afraid of foreign and in particular US produced content, France is an example.

Most of the films in the cinema and released on DVD here in Wales where I live are made in the US. It feels a little bit like the US is farming the rest of the world for money. I actually don't mind that. Some of my favourite bits of culture are American and I'm not at all nationalistic, I don't care if the people who make a film live 3000 miles away or in the next town.

 

 

I think Avatar is an interesting case to look at, not least because it's one of the highests grossing films of all time and generally perceived as being American.

 

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/intl.htm says

Title International Domestic Worldwide as Of: % Foreign % Domestic

Avatar 1982.0 748.5 2730.5 5/16/10 72.6% 27.4%

 

 

So there an 'American' film that has taken nearly $2000,000,000 in non-us territories. That's a gross figure, so much of that money would have stayed locally with cinemas etc, but I'm sure it still made a lot for the company that made it.

 

But Avatar isn't a purely American film. The lead visual effects company was Weta Digital in New Zealand. Clearly VFX were a huge part of why Avatar was successful. This goes against the idea that a lot of work is moved from the US overseas because it can be done cheaper albeit to a lower quality. As I understand it NZ has a great quality of life, and Avatar's effects aren't sub-par, Weta were probably chosen as they were the best in the world to do them, not because they were cheaper than a US company.

 

And James Cameron is a Canadian!

[Brian Dzyak]

As an outsider (I live in the UK) it's interesting to watch this thread because it feels like I'm seeing a debate Americans usually have in private, among themselves.

 

One thing that surprises me is the strong sentiment some people seem to have that California and LA in particular should somehow be entitled to have a lot of film production based there. I don't know if that's how people really feel, that's just the impression I get reading this thread and I could be misunderstanding.

 

It seems ironic that people in LA would complain about overseas production taking work from them when LA and the US in general has been accused of exactly the same thing in reverse all around the world for decades. Some countries even have laws requiring locally produced content because they're afraid of foreign and in particular US produced content, France is an example.

Most of the films in the cinema and released on DVD here in Wales where I live are made in the US. It feels a little bit like the US is farming the rest of the world for money. I actually don't mind that. Some of my favourite bits of culture are American and I'm not at all nationalistic, I don't care if the people who make a film live 3000 miles away or in the next town.

 

 

I think Avatar is an interesting case to look at, not least because it's one of the highests grossing films of all time and generally perceived as being American.

 

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/intl.htm says

Title International Domestic Worldwide as Of: % Foreign % Domestic

Avatar 1982.0 748.5 2730.5 5/16/10 72.6% 27.4%

 

 

So there an 'American' film that has taken nearly $2000,000,000 in non-us territories. That's a gross figure, so much of that money would have stayed locally with cinemas etc, but I'm sure it still made a lot for the company that made it.

 

But Avatar isn't a purely American film. The lead visual effects company was Weta Digital in New Zealand. Clearly VFX were a huge part of why Avatar was successful. This goes against the idea that a lot of work is moved from the US overseas because it can be done cheaper albeit to a lower quality. As I understand it NZ has a great quality of life, and Avatar's effects aren't sub-par, Weta were probably chosen as they were the best in the world to do them, not because they were cheaper than a US company.

 

And James Cameron is a Canadian!

 

 

I understand your POV entirely. I think that the primary issue which transcends this industry, is the move toward allowing Corporations, which are based in a particular nation, to move freely across borders without financial penalty for doing so...while WORKERS aren't allowed the same courtesy. The problem with that is that the reason this idea has been pushed since at least 1980 is the argument that a "global free market" is ultimately BETTER for everyone, Corporations and workers included.

 

But, the reality is that this is NOT a "Free Market" in that labor (you and I) are NOT allowed to work freely across borders to work (states and nations, as the case may be) and currency differences allow Corporations to USE leverage to essentially blackmail/extort governments for "tax incentives" to bring work to specific areas.

 

The point is that the "Hollywood" movie industry IS based in the Los Angeles area. That is WHERE the studios are where the projects originate and where the money ultimately flows back to from wherever it is earned in the world. The same goes for automakers or textiles or computers or any other product. Allowing those Corporations (and people who run them) to enjoy the benefits of living in the USA, to run around the globe looking for cheaper labor and "bribes" while also NOT paying their fair share of taxes (to enjoy existence in this nation), is the systemic problem with this economic model.

 

Other nations have complained for a long time about the uneven influx of "Hollywood" movies into their theaters which, presumably, push the local product and talent out of the marketplace. Some have created policies to encourage local product (thus, limiting "Hollywood" movies) while others haven't. My own opinion (for what it's worth) is to suggest that instead of encouraging this ideology of Transnational Globalization which only serves to drive wages down while enriching a scant few, to instead encourage LOCAL film industries instead of relying so heavily on "Hollywood" studios to bring work to them. Bollywood and Nollywood do fairly well on their own without having to "poach" foreign work from "Hollywood." So why don't regions like Canada and the UK and Australia work harder to develop their OWN industries instead of working so hard to deplete the work from "Hollywood" crews who aren't allowed to travel the world to chase the work as "tax incentives" troll around looking for the biggest bribes and the cheapest labor?

 

In other words, if a region's local theaters have too much "Hollywood" content, then fight to push more local content instead of just poaching work/projects from the USA? That would help your own local filmmakers and would (presumably) keep that money within your own nation instead of it being shipped somewhere else. It's kind of like those resorts in the Caribbean or Jamaica. Sure, those locals get jobs at a resort serving rich Europeans and Americans, but the resorts don't reinvest that money back into those impoverished island nations... the majority of the profits get shipped to already wealthy CEOs and to stockholders who live somewhere else. If those island nations had their own resorts, that money would stay within those borders and their nation would prosper. That should be the goal of filmmakers world-round. Of course we want the world to see our work (and pay to see it), but until there is a truly level playing field (so that there are no currency differences and so that workers can freely move across borders), then each nation must practice a modicum of protectionism so that their own citizens are able to make a viable living.

[Brian Dzyak]

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=3971

 

 

NM film industry subsidies: corporate welfare?

 

 

 

Citing a 2008 study of New Mexico’s film industry subsidies, Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik Friday questioned California’s own $100 million-a-year tax credits for Hollywood film productions, calling them “corporate welfare.”

 

The study showed that New Mexico saw only 14 cents in returns for every dollar it spent on film production tax credits.

 

According to a state review of SIC data, there were 52 film tax credits worth $46 million in 2008 and 78 credits worth $76 million in 2009, The Independent reported in March.

 

The value of the state’s film tax credit program, particularly in terms of its economic benefits, is a hotly debated topic in New Mexico and has been for years.

 

A competing report issued in January 2009 by the New Mexico Film Office found a much more positive economic impact than the report cited by Hiltzik. Conducted by Ernst & Young, the study concluded that the program had earned $0.94 in additional tax revenue for each $1.00 paid out in incentives based on the 2007 value of present and future year tax receipts and the 2007 value of state film production tax credits.

 

But Hiltzik counts himself among the skeptical when talk turns to reports such as the one performed by Ernst & Young.

 

“The rationale for this welfare program is to keep productions from fleeing to other states, taking … jobs with them,” Hiltzik reported. “But you could go blind looking for an independent study, as opposed to studies funded by the state film commissions handing out the dough, showing that such programs produce more in overall benefits than they cost.”

 

SIC members have raised separate concerns about the value of New Mexico’s no-interest loans for film productions, The Independent reported in March. New Mexico has given Hollywood $273 million in no-interest loans for 26 films since 2003, including $15 million for the Denzel Washington film Book of Eli, The Independent reported.

 

New Mexico legislators have called for Gov. Bill Richardson to curtail state subsidies for Hollywood productions.

 

It was reported in March that the Motion Picture Association of America was considering Richardson as the organization’s new director, a position with a salary exceeding $1 million a year.

[Guest]

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=3971

 

 

NM film industry subsidies: corporate welfare?

 

Why just pick on the film industry?

 

Wall Street was handed the biggest corporate welfare package in world history. Not too mention a dozen US banks, AIG, and now GM is owned by the US and Canadian gov'ts. GMs stock price is now .66.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Why just pick on the film industry?

 

Wall Street was handed the biggest corporate welfare package in world history. Not too mention a dozen US banks, AIG, and now GM is owned by the US and Canadian gov'ts. GMs stock price is now .66.

 

R,

 

I agree 100%. There is absolutely NO reason for any government EVER ANYWHERE to hand out tax breaks, subsidies, or Welfare to any Corporation.

 

 

I just worked on a project yesterday for a major Hollywood studio in which the budget for this thing was so low that the Producer "couldn't afford" to pay the actors ( I got paid my normal rate). I found that out at the end of the day. The project we shot was for the DVD which undoubtedly WILL earn the studio MILLIONS in profit. That the actors who showed up agreed to this deal (for "exposure on a high-profile project) speaks to the greed and opportunism of Corporations who A) have the money NOW to pay people properly and B ) go out of their way to exploit the hopes and dreams of people whose primary goal isn't to just make money.

 

The USA USED TO not allow nonsense like this to happen, but the "Reagan Revolution" ushered in a new era for the entire world where profit is the new god and the common-good isn't even part of the discussion.

 

We wonder (in the USA) why Oil Corporations are still given billions in subsidies. I mean, why? These are TRILLION dollar companies. What in hell do multi-TRILLION dollar Corporations need subsidies for?

 

So yes, this is an endemic problem not private to the film industry. "Conservatism," Corporatism," and yes, Milton Friedman-ism IS the evil that threatens civilization and democracy itself. But to people who support the current Fascist system (when Corporations run governments), profit is all that matters, everything else bedamned.

[Ben J]

What a depressing thread.

[Brian Dzyak]

What a depressing thread.

 

 

The reality IS depressing, but the CONservative propaganda machine (led by FOX "News") would have us believe that Reaganomics/Unfettered Free Market Capitalism is "the best" economic model for the planet Earth. The simple fact is that it is NOT unless you happen to be one of the millionaires or billionaires who benefit from the policies of the CONservative agenda.

 

I find the attached chart to be very interesting. http://www.dzyak.com/wealthgapchart_copy.jpg

 

What the chart illustrates is that, adjusted for inflation, the lowest line on the chart represents how much better the poorest in America are doing since 1979. If you're in the bottom fifth of the income bracket, you're only making 16% more today than you did in 1979.

 

If you're in the middle of the income bracket, you're making 25% more today.

 

The top fifth of earners in the USA are making 95% more today than they did in 1979.

 

But the top 1% of earners in the USA are now making 281% of what they would have made in 1979.

 

It doesn't take a genius to recognize the correlation between Reaganomics and the way income disparity has grown. Most people, and most here, are likely in that middle income bracket. And most people are out in the world arguing with each other over whether they "deserve" that extra 25%. And while "we" do that, those top fifth and top 1% are sitting on their yachts enjoying the show.

 

Look at this also:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

 

 

Chief executives at the nation’s largest corporations received $9.25 million in average total compensation in 2009, according to the AFL-CIO’s analysis of available pay data from 292 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Although average total compensation for these CEOs declined 9 percent from the previous year, executive retirement benefits increased 23 percent.

 

 

That's on average, a single individual taking home over $9 MILLION dollars PER YEAR! And people STILL believe that it's unions and their hourly workers that are "ruining" the economy? Seriously?! How on Earth can anyone justify this system with a straight face?

[Brian Dzyak]

Realfilmcareer.com

 

Are state’s film credits worth $193,000 per job?

 

A recent Senate Fiscal Agency report again raises serious questions about the effectiveness of Michigan’sfilm credits. As part of our legislative oversight responsibly, the Senate Finance Committee heard from agency officials about their issue paper on the film credits, which are estimated to cost taxpayers more than $193,000 per direct job created in 2009.

 

A serious - yet not surprising - finding by SFA economist David Zin, was that the state “will never be able to make the credit ‘pay for itself’ from a state revenue standpoint.”

 

At a time when Michigan lost more than 240,000 jobs, I believe that it was inadvisable that the state spent $68.7 million in film credits in 2009 to create only 355 full-time employees. According to the report’s data, the film credits are less effective than previously thought. It was originally believed that the state would generate 17 cents in tax revenue for every dollar spent. But the report says the state is only getting back 11 cents for each dollar given away in credits. That type of spending is simply unsustainable.

 

It is also astounding that nearly half of the private-sector spending resulting from the credits went out-of-state. According to the report, 47.4 percent of the expenditures qualified for the Media Production Credit in 2008 did not affect the Michigan economy - primarily because they were made to individuals and firms outside of Michigan.

 

More at http://www.realfilmcareer.com

[K Borowski]

Now that said this issue did explode in Canada a few years back. A movie was made here called, Young People F--king, and it touched off a fire storm once the public and a few other wise sleeping politicians realized public money went into the movie via the tax credits and other financing from TeleFILM.

 

Wait, I missed this until now Canada shelled out tax credits for a porno?

 

Or was it in the genre of "American Pie," or "Zack and Miri Make a Porno?"

[Guest]

Wait, I missed this until now Canada shelled out tax credits for a porno?

 

Or was it in the genre of "American Pie," or "Zack and Miri Make a Porno?"

 

We'll never know, like most Canadian films it never got any distribution.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Wait, I missed this until now Canada shelled out tax credits for a porno?

 

Or was it in the genre of "American Pie," or "Zack and Miri Make a Porno?"

 

Does it really matter what the content of the movie was? The bottom line is that Governments (Local, State, National) are handing out Corporate Welfare to Corporations and companies that don't really need it to produce their products. In other words, they are publicizing the costs, and privatizing the profits.

 

I have to wonder, for every government that hands over cash and incentives/bribes, are those municipalities considered investors thus deserving of points on the back end? I haven't heard of that, so I wonder, "why not?" A government gives a gift of tax incentives to a Corporation to create a product, but sees NONE of the benefits/profits from the generous gift. Why is that?

 

As the continuing research illustrates, tax subsidies/incentives DO bring work to places that wouldn't ordinarily have it, BUT when running the numbers, the net result is typically a net LOSS to that geographical location. In other words, the Corporation that took those incentives makes off with the profits while the municipalities that gave the bribes are left with debt AND less tax revenue (that is desperately needed for things like schools and infrastructure). Of course, Libertarians and CONservatives like to say that CHARITY is the way that "social issues" should be funded, but should our children and elderly (and those who are "outsourced") be forced to rely on charity in order to survive?

 

 

For US, the actual people in the trenches, it means having to chase the "incentives" just to get work in order to raise our families and pay our bills. The film industry IS based in Southern California and that is where MOST of the most experienced people are based and have homes and raise their families. So, why do CONservatives, who claim to care about "family values," support policies (like Corporate Welfare) that drives wedges into families that drives them apart because people in the film industry are forced to travel to distant locations for weeks and months on end?

 

 

It doesn't matter what the content is. What matters is that the film industry was based in a specific location and people who built their lives around that location are forced into struggling. The only reason for that is greed. Corporate greed chases the government that offers the biggest bribe which in turn negatively affects the municipality that doesn't get the necessary tax revenue from that Corporation. So, while the movie production company walks off paying less taxes, the employees (crew) aren't entitled to the same "incentives" and wind up paying MORE in the end to keep government and civilized society functional.

[K Borowski]

I think content does matter, Brian.

 

 

We all know that most films lose money (notice I didn't "loose" money this time :-p), but yet they continue to be made. Could that be, in part, due to the desirable nature of watching movies as opposed to, say, watching paint dry or mopping floors?

 

Sure it is a business, but most regulators don't understand how films are made. As such, their loss.

 

 

You complain about tax incentives. Well, if your state weren't bankrupt, it'd be in their best interest to offer some of the same. (And I am not anti-California, having been born there, I think it is a great, great state :-) It's just like it is impossible for a non-millionaire to run for President in the U.S.

 

American films, despite a high amount of them losing money, are still some of the only films worldwide, save maybe Bollywood, that MAKE MONEY for the studios. States are taking a gamble now offering incentives, with hopes, that, eventually their loss-leading early contributions DO lead to economic growth in the long run as more and more films are attracted.

 

 

I don't understand, either, how you can, on the one hand be against Republicans/conservatives/Milton Freedmanists making money, but on the other hand, are decrying government essentially supporting your industry, just not in California. That seems to be a traditionally socialist/liberal minded goal of helping out people in hard times. I thought that you, of all people, would be FOR subsidy.

[K Borowski]

That's on average, a single individual taking home over $9 MILLION dollars PER YEAR! And people STILL believe that it's unions and their hourly workers that are "ruining" the economy? Seriously?! How on Earth can anyone justify this system with a straight face?

 

I've looked at your charts earlier in this post (didn't quote it all here), but the math simply doesn't add up, from a cursory glance to your not taking into account INFLATION and COST OF LIVING. According to the charts, EVERYONE gained income, which I highly doubt could be true even in comparison to the world population. Single most important factor should be income compared to regional cost of living.

 

 

 

You keep talking about CEOs making millions of dollars, and I audibly have sighed, twice reading this, it is such witchmongering. You seek to villify the upper class who, for the most part, have ZERO impact on a company's bottom line, unless they are managing a small business. For a corporation, they could be spending twice that on ONE AD CAMPAIGN. And, guess what, if 30,000 workers are making $60,000,000 per year more $1.00 per hour more assuming a 250-day work year. That's 6-2/3x as much as CEO pay matters in the company. A $1/hr wage increase or decrease, not including fringe benefits or sick days, just the standard 2 weeks vacation, accounts for $60,000,000 in a 30,000 man company.

 

I DO NOT SUPPORT EXORBITANT CEO PAY, AND THINK IT SHOULD BE REGULATED LIKE THE U.S. ORGANIZED JAPANESE CONSTITUTION DOES, BUT YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE USING CEOs as SCAPEGOATS. UNIONS ARE GAINING MORE THAN $1.00/hr. FOR THEIR WORKERS, NOT THAT I AM AGAINST UNIONS.

 

Corporations are in business to make money; so are you. Where is the conflict? There should be a common ground.

 

 

You keep acting as if only California deserves production, or some people it is only the U.S. This is the wrong attitude to take. The 3rd world is going to come up and take what is, rightfully theirs. We can either welcome them into it and urge them to adopt a middle class, unions, polution laws, and trade regulations of their own, or they are doomed to go through the same ugly period that WE did 250 years ago in our own ugly industrial revolution.

 

Hopefully reason and common sense will prevail. We'll realize they are human beings, just like us, and help them avoid the same terrible mistakes that plunged this country into a civil war. A lot of people don't realize the economic causes of the Civil war. There was a great deal of disparity between the industrialized North leveraging tariffs on the cotton plantation owners of the South to the point that they couldn't cultivate cotton, without slavery, prior to industrialization.

[Guest]

Does it really matter what the content of the movie was? The bottom line is that Governments (Local, State, National) are handing out Corporate Welfare to Corporations and companies that don't really need it to produce their products. In other words, they are publicizing the costs, and privatizing the profits.

 

Yeah but it's glamorous. :D

 

 

As the continuing research illustrates, tax subsidies/incentives DO bring work to places that wouldn't ordinarily have it, BUT when running the numbers, the net result is typically a net LOSS to that geographical location.

 

There are a large number of indirect investments that are not counted in these studies. For instance, does the study you present calculate the amount of money that went to hotel owners to put up the cast and crew? The hotel then in turns pays its employees, who in turn pay taxes, so the state recovers money here. They also recover money when the hotel employee buys goods and services and pays sales taxes etc.

 

The money goes much deeper into the economy than your superficial study would suggest.

 

 

The film industry IS based in Southern California and that is where MOST of the most experienced people are based and have homes and raise their families. So, why do CONservatives, who claim to care about "family values," support policies (like Corporate Welfare) that drives wedges into families that drives them apart because people in the film industry are forced to travel to distant locations for weeks and months on end?

 

Well we've been down this road before. It's simply a pipe dream Brian that all film workers in S. Calif will be employed 12 mos a year just because they choose to live in a place where a shoe box of a house sells for $700, 000.00!

 

Tell me what I am supposed to do with the project I am working on now....NONE of the locations I need are in S. Calif, so what would you have me do? Tear up the script and write some thing that takes place in S. Calif?

 

If a movie is set in London it's set in London, if a movie is set in Alaska, it's set in Alaska. No amount of jumping up and down about shooting in S. Calif will change that.

 

If it's any consolation to you, NZ is now turning the tables on Canada. This movie is set in Canada in the actual movie, but filmed in NZ!

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243462/

 

So that meant BC film workers where out of jobs on this one. That's life I'm afraid.

 

R,