A once fledgling movement to establish a U.S. film commission has gained significant momentum in recent months, the latest development coming last week (2/18) in Los Angeles when a core group of city and state film commissioners who advocate the federal film commission concept met with representatives from the National Association of State Development Agencies (NASDA), a non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based organization whose membership consists of economic development department officials from states throughout the country.
At that session, NASDA and the city/state film commis-
sion contingent agreed to form Film US, an association designed to promote the making of films and related media in the U.S. While the Film US moniker has existed for nearly the past three years-originally launched by numerous state and local film commissioners as a networking group to help get a federal film commission off the ground (SHOOT, 7/5/96, p. 7)-NASDAs involvement breathes new life into that undertaking. NASDA has a more than 50-year track record in economic development, and from its D.C. base has forged close-knit relationships with federal agencies.
Linking with NASDA can only help, related Joe OKane, director of the San Jose Film & Video Commission, and a long-time proponent of a federal film commission. He observed that NASDA is well established in D.C. and offers a direct conduit to the infrastructure of federal government. When we have issues or concerns relative to public lands, NASDA has a working relationship with the BLM [Bureau of Land Management]; if theres a problem with immigration, they [NASDA] can gain the ear of the INS [Immigration & Naturalization Service]. Even if Film US doesnt result in a federal film office, the establishment of a working relationship with NASDA is important to the film community. It gives us a seat at the government table.
But OKane and other film commissioners are optimistic that, with NASDAs involvement, the newly invigorated Film US will help to bring about a U.S. film commission. They contend that such a body is needed to help retain film and video production that is being lost to other nations, many of which have their own federal film commissions. OKane, a board member of the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI), stressed that a U.S. film commission would not in any way replace AFCI. Clearly the AFCI is extremely valuable to the overall industry in many ways, said OKane. He explained, however, that because it is an international organization with member film commissions from foreign countries, the AFCI cannot champion the cause of stateside filming in the way a U.S. film commission would.
Last weeks meeting with NASDA took place in Los Angeles because film commissioners were already gathered there for Locations 99, the AFCIs annual three-day (2/19-21) conference and trade show. Among the film commissioners at the meeting, according to Stanley Solheim, director of the Wisconsin Film Office, were himself, OKane, Pat Swinney Kaufman of the New York State Governors Office For Motion Picture and Television Development, 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.
Eight-Month Gestation?
Per its agreement with the film commissioners, NASDA will help to shape Film US during an initial eight-month organizing period. Efforts are underway to recruit membership, formulate a strategic plan and raise funds for Film US. A dues structure will be developed for different levels of membership.
Solheim has been named acting chair of Film US. He envisions city, county, state and regional film commissions becoming full-fledged, voting Film US members. Unions and guilds-who have been impacted negatively by runaway production-could, said Solheim, come in as associate members, while other industry support services (i.e.-rental houses, stages) might participate as sponsoring members. Unions, guilds and other industry factions conceivably could serve as advisory members to Film US.
Solheim-who with OKane first floated the idea of forming a U.S. film commission some six years ago during ShowBiz Expo East-said, Now well find out how serious people are about a federal film commission. We need to raise money initially from membership dues to help make this fly. I think the support is there.
Helping to generate a recent groundswell of support, he observed, has been runaway productions increasingly negative impact on a growing number of U.S. cities, states, unions, guilds and industry support firms. Canadas success in garnering work from the U.S.-particularly movies of the week-has sparked considerable concern, prompting members of the California Assembly Select Committee on Entertainment & The Arts to hold a day-long public hearing in Hollywood (SHOOT, 12/18/98, p. 7). And at AFCIs Cineposium last October in Denver, Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Entertainment Industry Task Force, advocated legislation and the formation of a U.S. film commission-part of the federal government-to combat the efforts of other countries to lure filmmaking away from America.
Solheim and OKane hope that after the eight-month organizing period with NASDA, a concrete plan with membership and financial support will be largely in place. This will give Film US a package to present to Congressman Foley who might then make some legislative headway with the federal film commission proposal.
Still to be determined are how the elements will come together. If a federal film commission comes to fruition, will it be a full-fledged part of national government with an office in D.C.? Will a continued link between NASDA and film commissioners be the underpinning for that operation? Or will NASDA and the film commission community build something that will stand on its own and not require their ongoing partnership? Will the proposed federal film office instead take the form of a film-savvy appointee who will serve as a conduit to the U.S. government for film commissioners and the overall industry? Or could it be a government lobbyist who will work closely with federal agencies and legislators?
Also armed with questions is Matt Miller, president of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers. We need to know how much a federal film commissioner will be empowered, said Miller. How well will a federal film commission be financed? And what exactly will that commissions duties be?
But Miller readily embraces the concept of a federal film commission. Its long overdue, he observed. So many countries in Europe have national film commissions to make sure an area attracts production and is film-friendly. He added that, if the federal film commissioner job parallels what state, local and regional commissioners do, that would be fantastic. Film commissioners serve as a liaison between the industry and government. They help gain support for legislation and procedures that draw filming into an area. They also, very importantly, market a region to bring filming in. The more they do that, the healthier it is for us and business in general.
Miller went on to say that having a federal film commissioner who is part of federal government explain to his or her government colleagues the ramifications, good and bad, of an issue, is invaluable; to have that filming voice coming from within government-an almost in-house counsel on issues-will help the industry work more effectively with government and legislators.
Solheim agreed that having an organization that represents the U.S. film industry at the federal level of government is long overdue. He contended that Film US and NASDA is the right match for making things happen in Washington.
A released statement from NASDA executive director Miles Friedman read: Film US will be a potent force for promoting film and television development here in the United States. Our partnership makes great sense.
