State budgets are facing shortfalls across the country, and with no quick turnaround in sight for the U.S. economy, many states are being forced to make cutbacks—and in some cases eliminate—a wide variety of programs and services in an effort to shrink budget deficits.
The motion picture, television and commercial production sectors have all been hard hit by the economic woes. While runaway production has become a serious issue for the industry over the past few years, a number of states are now also facing the prospect of their film commission budgets being slashed or eliminated due to lack of funding. Last year, the Massachusetts Film Office was shuttered (although it later reopened with private sector financing), and local commissions, such as those in St. Louis and Boston, have also been closed.
Other film offices that have recently been jeopardized by proposed budget cuts include: the Washington State Film Office, the Oregon Film & Video Office, the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission and the Minnesota Film and TV Board. As well, legislators will soon consider whether funding should be continued for anti-runaway production program Film California First (FCF), which reimburses certain film-related costs incurred by qualified production companies while shooting in California. The funding for the current fiscal year for FCF has recently run out, putting the program on hold until the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1.
Many regard the elimination of film commissions as akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Dawn Keezer, director of the Pittsburgh Film Office and chair of Film US, a trade group of film commissioners that seeks to keep film work in the United States, comments, "It’s unfortunate that they’re deciding to cut film commissions because they are revenue generators. There used to be a hundred and ninety-six state and local film offices in the U.S. Now, there are several states without any film office representation. Never in a million years would I have believed that would be the case."
Matt Miller, president/CEO of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), acknowledges that states have little choice in having to cut budgets, but contends it would be a mistake to eliminate film offices. "Their role is to ease any restrictions so filmmakers would find it beneficial to shoot [in a particular location]," notes Miller. "Not only are they invaluable resources when you’re trying to secure a location, but their function is economic development. Closing them would be a nominal savings and a potentially great loss of employment."
Steve Caplan, senior VP/ external affairs for the AICP, has been heavily involved on behalf of the AICP’s membership in lobbying government officials to retain funding for film offices and anti-runaway initiatives like FCF. He believes that educating legislators and showing the economic impact of filmmaking are crucial if film offices are to justify their existence.
"Legislators have an awful lot on their plates right now," says Caplan, who is also on the board of advisors for the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI). "All local governments are grappling with shrinking budgets and the state budget process is extremely volatile in California right now. Film offices are left out in the cold when deciding to cut hospitals, healthcare, education. We’re trying to lobby aggressively to educate elected officials and show the importance of film offices’ economic development efforts."
Frank Scherma, proprietor of bicoastal/international @radical.media, concurs that film office closures are shortsighted, given the sizable return they provide; in many cases the revenue generated by film offices for their respective states dwarf their relatively modest budgets. "They’re small offices with resources—it’s not as if you need a twenty-person staff to operate [a film commission]," Scherma notes. "If you bring in one movie [to film in the state], the operating budget has been paid for many times over."
Many industry executives SHOOT spoke with opine that elected officials and the public at large—having had little exposure to the filmmaking industry—don’t understand the function of film commissions. Key among the services commissions provide is helping facilitate out-of-state productions by informing producers what resources and locations are available to filmmakers.
"For us, and for a lot of production companies, one of the first calls we make [when we get a job] is to a film commission," says David Cress, executive producer at Food Chain Films, Portland, Ore. He notes that Food Chain director Andrews Jenkins has directed a number of spots featuring celebrities, which necessitates shooting in a location that is convenient for the talent.
For instance, Cress reports, Jenkins recently shot Budweiser’s "Interview," via DDB Chicago, in North Carolina because that was where Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was featured in the spot, was. Although the company had filmed in North Carolina before, they called the film office to determine what racetrack facilities were available and to learn about the production infrastructure.
Film offices are also valuable now that the prep time for commercials has decreased dramatically. "Now it’s not abnormal to have a week and a half to set into motion a major spot production," Cress notes. "We need film commissions to send out scouts and do more of the traditional research."
Education
Perhaps many decision-makers do not fully grasp that the livelihood of people in the local production community (vendors, crew people, directors, producers, etc.) depends upon the health of the filmmaking industry. There is also the trickle-down impact to ancillary local businesses to be considered. Out-of-state dollars are spread throughout the business communities in filming locations to hotels, restaurants, dry cleaners, lumber yards, hardware stores, taxi companies and so on.
Some believe that educating people about the importance of film commissions is key. The Minnesota Film and TV Board, now waging a fight for survival, is hoping its fate will be saved by a marketing video slated to be screened for state legislators. Kathy DiToro, executive VP/ director of broadcast production at agency Campbell Mithun, Minneapolis, spearheaded the creation and production of the video, which uses interviews with members of the local filmmaking community and residents who discuss how their lives are impacted by filming in the state.
A member of the Minnesota Film and TV Board, DiToro explains that making a video seemed a natural choice. She recalls that during a meeting of the board members discussing how to save the film office’s funding, "we were sitting around thinking, ‘What do we do?’ I said to [film office director] Craig Rice, ‘We’re filmmakers. Our job is to communicate. Why don’t we shoot something?’ " In discussing the goals of such a video, the board chose "Minnesota Produces" as the theme, with the piece divided into the areas of money generated, jobs created and functions of the film office.
Keezer notes that four years ago, the Pittsburgh Film Office created a short PSA titled "Maniac" that aired as a trailer in local theatres. Produced for $2,400, the piece parodied the film Flashdance, with a 67-year-old woman in the Jennifer Beals role. Copy provided viewers with pertinent statistics about the local film production industry. A line related that there are "thousands of people who benefit from the film community." As visuals on the screen revealed that it is an old woman dancing, the copy read, "…but she’s not one of them."
A year and a half ago, Keezer adds, the Pittsburgh Film Office created a local marketing campaign in conjunction with Blockbuster in which brochures providing some statistics about the local film community were given to Blockbuster patrons. Additionally, Blockbuster compiled all the films shot in Pittsburgh and displayed them in the New Releases section, under the title "Movies Made Here." The campaign lasted a year. "We’ve found ways to be creative and communicate our message locally," says Keezer.
Scherma opines that economic studies that show return on investment are most useful to the cause of film offices. "[Economic studies] are a big part of what [legislators] think about," says Scherma. "You need to show that if we spend X amount, how much of that is coming back into the community. Look, for example, at what happened to Southern California when the aerospace industry went away—what happened to the hotels, the restaurants, the property values. That’s money that left the state."
Scherma believes that economic studies would help to demonstrate the trickle-down impact to the local communities. "[For instance, look at] money being spent at Home Depot, where you get the rope; at Starbucks, where you pick up the coffee order; at the local dry cleaners," he relates. "People don’t look at that aspect of it. If the money gets put back into the coffers, [a film commission’s operational budget] pays for itself."
Programming
Cami Taylor, co-owner/executive producer at Crossroads Films, bicoastal and Chicago, reports that Crossroads has received reimbursements from the FCF program. "It’s a wonderful savings, and a great way to efficiently produce work," says Taylor. "[At the encouragement of the AICP,] we wrote letters [to elected officials] explaining how important we thought FCF was. It’s important to maintain funding for the FCF because if any of these programs go away, it’s virtually impossible to get them back. Once the funding is gone, it’s gone for good."
At press time, Caplan was about to travel to Sacramento, Calif., to testify before the California State Assembly about FCF. "In one sense, FCF was a victim of its own success—all of the money allocated was spent," says Caplan. He adds that it will be a real struggle to fight for FCF’s existence given the state’s $33 billion deficit.
Caplan notes that a number of states have commissioned economic surveys that attempt to equate revenues with the work of film offices, but there is a need for more research. "Data is sorely lacking in our industry," he comments. "Film offices need to have a better handle on the economic data."
There is also the justifiable fear that the elimination of more film offices and programs such as FCF would adversely impact domestic filmmaking and further exacerbate runaway production. "FCF is very important because it sends a signal to the marketplace and to advertisers that we want to keep business here," says Scherma.
Keezer believes that more film and video production will be lost to other countries if U.S. state and local film offices continue to have their budgets slashed or eliminated. "It’s harder to justify their [film offices’] existence now," says Keezer. "There is global competition for our business and the U.S. hasn’t stayed competitive."
While she cites several letter-writing campaigns initiated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Directors Guild of America (DGA) on behalf of film commissions, Keezer says there needs to be a stepped-up effort from those in the production community. "It has to be done by crew members, the talent base, vendors, production companies … they need to let their elected leaders know that film commissions are important."
"It’s difficult for the production community to be involved except through its members," agrees Cress. "There’s not a nine hundred pound gorilla in the film production industry [to lobby for film offices]. It’s up to the people who making a living at it—grips, prop people and so forth. They need to be more involved in the political process and make officials understand that this is their livelihood."
