LOS ANGELES-Some six years ago during ShowBiz Expo East, a group of state film commissions began floating the idea of forming a U.S. film commission. They contended that such a body was needed to help retain film and video production that is being lost to other nations, many of which have their own federal film commissions. In 1996, some 30 U.S. city and film commissioners joined to form Film US, a networking group that supports the federal concept (SHOOT, 7/5/96, p. 7).
Arguably, interest waned or at least the issue fell to a lower profile for a stretch. But now momentum again appears to be building as the specter of runaway production has negatively impacted a growing number of states. Canada’s success in garnering U.S. work-particularly movies of the week-has affected such states as California, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon and Wisconsin.
"It’s ironic," observed Stanley Solheim, director of the Wisconsin Film Office and an original organizer of Film US. "Years ago, you had numerous states pushing to gain runaway production from California. Now, many of these states have become victims of runaway production which has gone to other countries." Solheim cited Warner Bros.’ construction of a studio in Perth, Australia, and of course FOX’s facilities in Sydney. He also noted the strength of the U.S. dollar in Canada, a country that also offers a myriad of tax and labor rebate incentives.
As earlier reported (SHOOT, 12/18/98, p. 7), the runaway production issue was the subject of a daylong public hearing in Hollywood last December. And testimony has prompted members of the California Assembly Select Committee on Entertainment & the Arts to consider drafting legislation that would make the state more competitive with foreign countries in attracting and keeping film shoots.
The runaway production issue also caught the legislative ear of the U.S. House of Representatives. During last October’s AFCI Cineposium in Denver, guest speaker, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.,), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Entertainment Industry Task Force, said that Congress should consider providing financial incentives so that filming would stay in the U.S. Foley noted that Canada’s tax incentive programs have proven successful in drawing filming away from America. To stay competitive, the U.S., he reasoned should seek ways to match other nations’ economic packages through tax incentives or tax rebates done on a federal, state or local level.
While the prospect of gaining a tax break for the entertainment industry might be viewed as a long shot in some circles, Foley added that other measures should be considered, including the formation of a U.S. film commission-part of the federal government-to consider options and lobby for proposed action that could help remedy the situation.
Now Solheim and his colleagues at Film US are looking to put together a concrete organizational proposal for a federal film commission. Solheim said that it is needed in order to provide "something tangible and express support" for any planned effort by Rep. Foley. Toward that end, Solheim and other film commissioners are scheduled to meet on Thursday, Feb. 19, in Los Angeles, the day prior to the start of AFCI’s Locations ’99 (see separate story, p. 61), to further discuss the federal film commission concept. Among those slated to participate include: Solheim; Joe O’Kane of the San Jose Film & Video Commission; Pat Swinney Kaufman of the New York State Governor’s Office For Motion Picture and Television Development; former AFCI president Linda Taylor Hutchison of the New Mexico Film Office; Chuck Elderd from the Palm Beach County (Fla.) Film & Television Commission; Kelly Heikkila of the Minnesota Film Board; Dawn Keezer from the Pittsburgh Film Office; and Ron Ver Kuilen from the State of Illinois Film Office.
Solheim noted that while many film commissioners-as well as unions and guilds-have expressed support for the formation of a federal film commission, there is as of yet no consensus as to how it should be structured. Suggestions have varied from a full-fledged office in Washington D.C., to perhaps just having a federal government employee who’s film savvy and who will serve as a conduit to U.S. government departments for film commissioners across the country. Or it could be a government lobbyist who will work closely with departments of U.S. federal agencies to make sure that filming issues are properly addressed.
Solheim is exploring patterning a federal film commission after, or aligning it with, the National Association of State Development Agencies, a body that has a track record of successfully dealing with issues of commerce. He also would like to set up a dues structure whereby film commission members contribute to the running of the organization. Solheim added that possibly associate memberships could also be made available so that other industry segments (i.e.-unions and guilds, location support services) could be involved and offer financial support.
Union and guild concern over runaway production is obviously rooted in loss of employment opportunities, well underscored in the recent testimony of Bruce Doering during the aforementioned public hearing on runaway production in Hollywood. Doering, national exec. director of the International Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 600) testified that Canadian incentives for filming include an 11% tax credit on wages paid to Canadian film workers while the provincial subsidies on labor costs can go as high as 22%. "However, a producer qualifies for these incentives only if he hires the requisite number of Canadian workers," said Doering. "Thus the Canadian system virtually guarantees that American below-the-line crew members will not work in Canada unless they have exceptional skills or Canadian craftspeople are fully employed."
Doering explained, "Our members are not angry with their Canadian [union] brothers and sisters. They’re angry with their government because U.S. immigration laws are far more porous than Canadian laws and because neither the state of California nor the federal government has exhibited much interest in addressing these issues."
Beyond runaway production, a federal film commission, contended Solheim, would also be ideally positioned to establish and maintain continuity in dialogue with such federal entities as: All branches of the armed services for military base filming; the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM); National Parks & Recreation; Federal Forest Lands; the Immigration & Naturalization Service; the Department of Labor; the Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; and the Internal Revenue Service.
Solheim stressed that a federal film office is not designed to in any way replace the AFCI, which has successfully liaisoned over the years on varied issues with different segments of federal, state and local governments. "A federal film office would just put us on a more level field with other countries that have a federal government operation in line to help promote their filming concerns and to make them more competitive in the global market."
While business issues provide the impetus for a federal film commission, Solheim noted that it’s arts funding that often fuels such commissions in other countries. "The U.S. treats film as commerce," observed Solheim. "Every other country treats it as art, and thus offers subsidies. In terms of a federal film commission, we need to strike home the importance of the government subsidizing this effort for reasons that are rooted in both art and commerce."
