By Robert Goldrich
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The White House has rolled back protections on numerous parcels of land that were designated as wilderness areas under the Clinton administration. The action—taken earlier this month in response to a suit filed by the State of Utah—could alter how millions of acres of public land are handled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) throughout the West. It will likely result in considerably more land becoming available for filming.
Utah filed suit in March, contending that only Congress—not the White House and BLM land managers—has the power to deem lands as being wilderness areas that qualify for protection from such activities as mining, drilling and road building. Lumped in with these prohibited or restricted activities has been filming, which is a non-polluting revenue generator. The production community has often felt it unfair that lensing of features, TV and commercials is bracketed with mining, drilling and other practices that have a major, often negative environmental impact.
Leigh von der Esch, executive director of the Utah Film Commission, observed, "Filming is a resource-sustaining activity, not a resource-depleting activity like mining and grazing. We still have to wait and see what the ramifications are of [the Bush administration’s directive to roll back the wilderness designation on certain lands], but it looks like there will be more filming opportunities, with an increased inventory of available land. Instances of film permit applications involving thirty and forty-five day waiting periods can be avoided."
Utah has nearly 35 million acres of federal land, 23 million of which are administered by the BLM.
Ken Davey, film commissioner of the Moab to Monument Valley Film Commission in Utah, noted that opportunities to film on many public land areas not designated as wilderness have actually opened up over the past few years, but the perception that filmmakers don’t have ready access to such land has persisted. "This latest action [by the Bush administration] may go a long way toward altering that perception," he stated.
Von der Esch believes that the Bush administration’s decision will not open up previously de facto designated wilderness areas to environmental abuses. However, several ecological and environmental organizations are in opposition to the White House rollback.
Von der Esch and Davey offered their feedback to SHOOT during the Locations Trade Show, presented by the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI) on April 11-13 in Santa Monica.
HOLDING PATTERN
Meanwhile, on a separate public land front relative to filming, the status quo continues. October 2001 was to have tentatively been the month for finalizing regulations governing lensing on federal lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS), but the tragic events of Sept. 11 put such action on hold, as the D.C. community tended to more pressing matters. That holding pattern continues now, a year and a half later.
Also on the backburner is a longstanding effort to get different public lands agencies-the NPS, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, all under the U.S. Department of the Interior’s aegis—to establish a unified set of guidelines related to filming. This would make it easier for film, TV and new-media producers to properly comply with regulations when looking to lens on federal land, no matter what government entity was overseeing the process.
The proposed (but still in limbo) NPS regulations—which reflect the interpretation of that government agency as to how to best implement filming reform legislation passed in ’00 —continue to contain provisions endorsed by the spot production community.
For example, the regulations base "reasonable" filming fees for national parks on crew size and length of stay on location. Both of these barometers are favorable to commercials, which are usually smaller scale productions and have shorter lensing periods than their TV program and theatrical feature counterparts.
Another provision upholds timely processing for film permits. The timetable for processing would be tied to the length of the projected filming. For filming permits of shorter duration—as is typical in spots—the turnaround time for processing would be shorter than would a request to shoot for an extended stretch of time, which is often the case for theatrical movies and telefilms.
The proposed NPS regulations also retain an 80-20 split of film fee revenue, with the 80 percent going to the local public land facility, where lensing takes place. The 20 percent balance is to be set aside for system-wide federal land needs. General consensus is that keeping the lion’s share of revenue within the local jurisdiction figures to benefit filming.
Some segments of the industry reason that this revenue distribution policy could serve as added incentive for local public land managers to facilitate production. This local revenue, for instance, could be put toward the hiring of liaisons to handle and expedite reasonable filming requests. Currently, many public land managers have assorted responsibilities, making it hard for them to divert time to facilitating quick turnaround for the issuance of film permits.
It was on the basis of these and other favorable provisions that the aforementioned piece of legislation made its way through Congress and then to the White House, where then President Clinton signed the bill into law (SHOOT, 6/30/00, p. 1). As earlier reported, among the industry groups supporting the bill were the Association of Independent Commercial Producers, the Association of National Advertisers and the Motion Picture Association of America.
Rom-Com Mainstay Hugh Grant Shifts To The Dark Side and He’s Never Been Happier
After some difficulties connecting to a Zoom, Hugh Grant eventually opts to just phone instead.
"Sorry about that," he apologizes. "Tech hell." Grant is no lover of technology. Smart phones, for example, he calls the "devil's tinderbox."
"I think they're killing us. I hate them," he says. "I go on long holidays from them, three or four days at at time. Marvelous."
Hell, and our proximity to it, is a not unrelated topic to Grant's new film, "Heretic." In it, two young Mormon missionaries (Chloe East, Sophie Thatcher) come knocking on a door they'll soon regret visiting. They're welcomed in by Mr. Reed (Grant), an initially charming man who tests their faith in theological debate, and then, in much worse things.
After decades in romantic comedies, Grant has spent the last few years playing narcissists, weirdos and murders, often to the greatest acclaim of his career. But in "Heretic," a horror thriller from A24, Grant's turn to the dark side reaches a new extreme. The actor who once charmingly stammered in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and who danced to the Pointer Sisters in "Love Actually" is now doing heinous things to young people in a basement.
"It was a challenge," Grant says. "I think human beings need challenges. It makes your beer taste better in the evening if you've climbed a mountain. He was just so wonderfully (expletive)-up."
"Heretic," which opens in theaters Friday, is directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, co-writers of "A Quiet Place." In Grant's hands, Mr. Reed is a divinely good baddie — a scholarly creep whose wry monologues pull from a wide range of references, including, fittingly, Radiohead's "Creep."
In an interview, Grant spoke about these and other facets of his character, his journey... Read More