By ROBERT GOLDRICH

In this week’s issue, senior reporter Christine Champagne covers the effects of the SARS scare on filming in Toronto (see story, p. 1). Though it appears that the city is now poised for a recovery, the short-term impact was profoundly negative.

And the negativity wasn’t confined within Canadian borders. During the six days that the World Health Organization’s travel advisory against Toronto was in effect, I received a half-dozen voicemail messages from unidentified callers who were overjoyed that Toronto was in trouble relative to spot filming. A couple of those messages even gloated that U.S. production that had "run away" to Toronto would now be running back.

While this column has been a staunch proponent of the U.S. anti-runaway movement—taking up the cause for state and local film commissions, and for filming incentives that have been jeopardized by massive overall state and city budget cutbacks—we find nothing to crow about in the Toronto situation. What’s disconcerting are those anonymous phone calls. They only bring another scary dimension to the SARS scenario.

I guess in a sense it’s understandable that some people who are frustrated by runaway production—which has negatively impacted thousands of lives in the U.S.—would find solace in misfortune befalling a prime runaway destination, but that kind of thinking is ultimately counterproductive. It only underscores the fact that we need to be looking elsewhere for some answers, as opposed to being mired in the blame game relative to other destinations.

While it would be great for the United States if local, state and federal government offered financial incentives to help level the global playing field in competition for filming, that’s generally not likely to happen given the aforementioned budget deficits. So it makes sense to look at ourselves and how we can make the situation in our communities more conducive to keeping and attracting production and post business.

I hearken back to a letter issued some three-and-a-half years ago by the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), which observed that the spot industry cannot rely solely on state and federal legislatures to address the runaway production issue (SHOOT, 7/23/ 99, p. 1). While the AICP has actively supported—and in some cases lobbied for—legislative-related reforms, the letter noted that there are other factors "discouraging production here which are not being addressed."

For example, the letter suggested a restructuring of "costly residual use fee systems." While it’s clear in the SAG contract that a signatory cannot leave the country to avoid terms of the agreement, an ad agency and/or client can opt for a foreign shoot for creative reasons and/or to save money in production. And once they elect to go outside the U.S. to film, some clients are realizing even larger savings via talent buyouts.

The AICP letter also stressed the importance of encouraging film-friendly attitudes in local communities. "Community groups that place strict limits on location production and extract exorbitant location fees or payoffs from production companies drive production out of their cities and country and take jobs away from their neighbors. Film commissions that act as liaison between the industry and community lack adequate funding," stated the letter.

The latter point is even more painfully true today in light of the budget cutbacks that have hit most state and local film commissions over the past year-plus. As chronicled in SHOOT, several of those film offices have been forced to close.

"We are entering a time in this industry’s evolution," the AICP letter pointed out, "when the American production community needs to be an aggressive competitor."

MySHOOT Profiles