Janet Lockwood has served as director of the Michigan Film Office for 14-plus years. She recalled coming “into a dark film office–i.e., no one was running it, there were no photographs, no paper trails. It was somewhat daunting, but the industry was extraordinarily helpful in getting everything going for and with me. It’s the best job in state government–not the highest paying, that’s for sure–but the best. I’m an old actress who really lucked out.”
SHOOT caught up with Lockwood and got her take on the state of filming in Michigan.
Q. What is the status of economic incentive legislation for filming in the state?
Lockwood: A modest incentive package passed the Michigan House of Representatives in December by a vote of 104 to 0. That package is currently in the Senate Finance Committee, not yet passed out by the chair, who has other priorities. Bottom line is, however, we need to substantially beef up the package in order to be competitive and we’re working diligently on doing just that. I am hopeful the new language will be accepted, in which case Michigan will be back in the fray with bells on.
Q. Would the proposed incentive(s), if passed, apply to commercials?
Lockwood: Yes indeed, they will, with an annual cumulative provision to allow smaller commercial companies to meet the $200,000 spending threshold.
Q. What’s the economic impact of filming in Michigan? Is business on the upswing as compared to the previous year?
Lockwood: No, business is not on the upswing. Without a meaningful incentive, Michigan is losing business, at least feature film business and probably commercial business. Michigan has always been in the top 20 states for feature filming economic impact, but so far this year, only two small indigenous films are shooting and nothing of size has firmly committed. The economy–in particular the auto industry–downswing is also hurting Michigan commercial work. And a couple of our agencies lost some large accounts in late 2005, which resulted in layoffs. But for features, the problem is no incentives. Period.
Q. What is the state of commercialmaking in Michigan? Do you have a handle on the economic impact of commercials on the state?
Lockwood: It’s not as healthy as it was. It’s still big business–don’t get me wrong–but it’s not as big as in the past.
I have never felt I have a handle on the economic impact of commercials. It has always been somewhat difficult to get that information from agencies; I relay on Crain’s (a business daily) for some data, on crew who work the shoots for additional data, on production companies who shoot commercials in Michigan and report expenditures to the Michigan Film Office, and on formulas. It’s not a perfect world, to say the least.
Q. What about Michigan’s filming infrastructure? Crew depth? Stages? Postproduction?
Lockwood: Crew depth is decent; we have well over 200 IATSE crew and an equal number of non-union crew statewide–not all positions are unionized in Michigan. We have some excellent crew people here–as good as anywhere else.
We have 20-plus stages of various sizes and some very good post houses.
For a more detailed look at the resources here and varied locations, check the Web site, www.michigan.gov/filmoffice.
