The Massachusetts Film Office (MFO) became the first state film commission to fall by the wayside due to the current wave of budgetary crises (see story, p. 1). In recent months, local film commissions have been shuttered, including those in St. Louis and Boston. And while the state and municipal budget crunch is all too real, the notion that meaningful savings can be achieved by eliminating film commissions is incredibly shortsighted.
You may recall that the Washington State Film Office was also in jeopardy earlier this year. But ultimately, common sense prevailed and that film commission was saved as the powers that be realized that the Washington State Film Office generated filming and related revenue many fold the amount of its operating budget (SHOOT, 4/26, p. 1). It was estimated that on average for each dollar in its budget, the Washington State Film Office contributed in excess of $100 on average over the past 10 years.
State budget emergencies have unfortunately become prevalent this year, due in large part to staggering losses of revenue and jobs. However to attempt to address these financial shortfalls by cutting an investment that translates into perhaps 50 or 100-fold more revenue and thousands of jobs is simply ludicrous. Washington State woke up to this reality in time, but unfortunately Massachusetts didn’t.
A $2 billion state budget deficit for the current 2002-’03 fiscal year is cited as justification for the closure of the MFO. Ironically, it should have instead been justification to keep the office open, as the need is perhaps more profound than ever to maintain viable film commission operations throughout the country since they represent an invaluable means to help bring about economic recovery. During a time when runaway production has become a hot-button issue, the shutdown of the MFO is all the more counterproductive. To be fair, the Massachusetts House of Representatives initially saw the prudence of maintaining the state film commission, allocating $496,000 for the Massachusetts Film Office in its proposed state budget. By contrast, the State Senate eliminated funding altogether. Negotiations between the House and Senate failed to produce a compromise to spare the film commission.
Members of the production community in Boston were stunned by the decision not to fund the MFO. "It’s insane. Economically, it’s a big mistake. This is going to drive a lot of production away," said R.J. Casey, executive producer of Redtree Productions, Boston, noting, "When we go on location, sometimes the determining factor is how helpful the state film office is."
Bob Hirsch, manager of film and video lighting for Boston’s High Output, assessed, "It [the MFO’s closure] sends a message to the production industry at large that if you come to Massachusetts, you’re on your own. There’s no doubt this is going to cost the state of Massachusetts millions of dollars."
Dawn Keezer, chair of Film US, an organization of nearly 200 state and local film commissions dedicated to keeping and attracting production business in the U.S., was critical of the decision not to allocate funding for the MFO. Keezer, who is director of the Pittsburgh Film Office, observed, "When you’re working with the production industry—whether it be commercials, feature films, television, whatever—they’re coming in, spending money and leaving. You’re not building new roads, new schools, new infrastructure for them. It’s really a win for the area when they come in. So to shut down the organization that is charged with going out and marketing and attracting that production is a travesty."
