Saturday, November 4, 2006

From the E-Mailbag...

Ray Arthur, who's one of my frequent e-mailers here, is a Film Commissioner for the Ridgecrest Regional Film Commission, He writes the following in response to my wondering if it's worth it for Los Angeles to surrender its streets to location shooting...

The short answer is, yes, it's worth it!

Since 2000 we've seen a steady stream of film production leave not only the Los Angeles basin but the entire state of California. It started with modest incentives from Canada and has developed into multi-leveled cash giveaways and tax credits from a dozen countries and 26 states, all successfully gaining for a piece of the Hollywood pie. An easy way to understand country tax credits, provincial tax credits, discount crew wages and, at times, the dollar exchanges that create the total Canada incentive package is: for every three MOWs, movies of the week, that ABC produces in Toronto...they get the fourth one free. Estimates from FilmLA (L.A. city/county film commission and the California Film Commission) show that in the past five years the state, primarily L.A., has lost 10,000 jobs and $30 million in revenue from runaway production.

Part of the problem is that Governor Schwarzenegger has been unable to create a California film incentive package. AB777 languished in the State Assembly for two years and died a quiet death last spring. Why? For two basic reasons: the promoters of the bill/package were unable to overcome the label that it was a tax break for Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise. This was entirely false in that all the credits were for "below the line" crew, i.e., others than the 10,000 who lost their jobs. Secondly, the Assembly & Senate wouldn't consider giving a tax break JUST to film. The Republicans said, "If it's good for film, it's good for aerospace, high tech, etc." Then the Democrats said, "If it's good for aerospace and high tech, it's good for agriculture and manufacturing." Without a multi-industry buy-in, which was cost prohibitive, it was dead. While all of these industries have their problems, none have the specific type of problem the film is battling.

The L.A. Times editorial notes that, "the State doesn't charge a dime..." And that's true, because that's about the only incentive the State has. The editorial also uses the number $2.6 million a day as revenue from a feature film. I've never seen that number but I really like it!!! I think that was a total, not daily, estimate. The CFC is currently revising (read: COLA update) estimates for daily on location film production. The $$ number that most film commissions throughout the State of California use for an average size feature film, and Die Hard 76 is not average - it's huge, is $46,000 per day. That's actual disposable income into the community in which they're filming. For Die Hard, multiply that, not just by the number of days they're tying up LAX traffic but, by the total number of shoot days they're in L.A. Let's say that's 60. That's $2,760,000. And that's before the "3 to 7 times" multiplier that economists use for local disposable income. Also, that's JUST the dollars that are left in the community. Had Die Hard shot in Toronto you would have lost that income, plus the wages of 75% of the crew on that film who would have been replaced by Canadians. $2.76 million is a number that reasonable people will disagree as to the level of inconvenience with which a neighborhood/city should endure.

It's easy for me to sit in Ridgecrest, by God, California, with my $3 million in filming (down from $7 million by the way) and suggest to several million Angelenos that they look at the big picture. That the inconvenience is worth the sacrifice. But when you add the negative economic impact of the past five years, with the inability of the State legislature to take this problem seriously, I submit that is the case.

One could raise the question, "Why can 12 countries and 26 states produce quality feature films for 25% to 40% less than Hollywood?" But that's another discussion for another time.

As I read the Times editorial, they were not arguing against the concept that the government should make concessions, or that the community should endure some inconvenience to keep productions in town. They were suggesting that this particular trade-off probably didn't make sense. Since it's impossible to predict and quantify the negatives, I don't know how someone could say with any certainty that the losses and problems won't outweigh the benefits on this one. Closing off access routes to the airport sounds like something that could really cause a lot of people a lot of woes...and I wonder where the airlines and airport merchants were on this one. Seems to me that if a lot of flights are delayed, or if a lot of seats go empty because passengers missed their planes, the airlines stand to lose a lot more money than the movie will bring into the local economy.

There's also the question of how many of those financial benefits will directly or indirectly reach those who are going to suffer so that Bruce Willis can dodge fireballs on the 105 freeway. And I think the Times felt there had not been sufficient "public input" into the decision of whether this accommodation should be made. I'll bet it was a done deal before most of those who will be impacted even knew about it and therefore had the chance to object.

It's possible that this is a good deal for the community, just as it's possible that the movie wouldn't have gone to Toronto or some other town if they didn't get every possible consideration. For a multitude of reasons, including a desire to use locations that would have been identifiable as Southern California, they might have opted to stay in town and spend even more here. Some very expensive movies do film here despite lucrative offers to go elsewhere.

I'd be curious to know what proposals, if any, the local film commissions have refused lately. There have to be some that looked like they'd do more damage than good. One hopes the new Die Hard movie won't turn out to be one of them...and maybe these projects need a little more public scrutiny in advance. I can think of a few businesses out that way that can't help but get harmed by having those streets closed off.

Thank you, Ray, for the perspective. I'm always amazed that I can write about almost anything on this site and hear from someone who knows more about it than I do. Not that there's any shortage of such people or topics...

• Posted at 5:15 PM · LINK

Today's Video Link

This week's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher will please you if you want to see a hapless Republican congressman fail miserably to defend the G.O.P. agenda and its leaders. I'm actually not sure what to think of a guy like Jack Kingston (R-GA). On the one hand, I admire his courage at dousing himself in A-1 Sauce, walking into the lions' den and fighting for what he believes. On the other hand, not every brave action is also a good idea and some are so hopeless that you have to question the wisdom of someone who puts himself in that kind of situation. They don't do themselves a lot of good and they may actually be harming their own cause(s) by conferring legitimacy on a stacked debate.

It isn't that Kingston is dumb but it's tough to defend Bush's Iraq policy when so many Conservatives, Republicans and military men are cutting and running, if not from it then from him. (It's also tough to defend it in front of Maher's studio audience, which is willing to boo a truly stupid statement. When Kingston tried to claim that John Kerry was actually slandering the intelligence of our troops, it warranted booing.)

In case you didn't catch the show and don't want to, I'm linking to the opening interview, which you ought to see. It's Maher interviewing Robert Greenwald, who made a new film that argues that a shocking amount of our tax dollars are going to corporations that have military contracts for Iraq but — and this warrants all caps — DO NOT DO THE JOB. American interests, including the safety of our troops, are being ignored because incompetent and dishonest companies are making fortunes without any real oversight. I am amazed not only that there isn't more outrage about this but that so many people kind of shrug and look the other way, like it's okay with them. If John Kerry had pocketed money that was supposed to go for soldiers' body armor, a lot of the folks who were outraged at his remarks wouldn't have made a peep about that.

I'd like to think this will be the next big scandal because it's about time war-profiteering and non-performance of duties got investigated. I don't have any real predictions for Tuesday but I can tell you my fondest wish. It's that my Congressman, Henry Waxman, winds up with subpoena power. He'll go after the abuses talked about in the following conversation...

• Posted at 1:40 PM · LINK

Drive Harder

Everyone who lives in Los Angeles has at one time or another been enormously inconvenienced by someone filming something. When a TV show or motion picture needs our streets, traffic is instantly rerouted, businesses are closed and "no parking" signs go up in the darnedest places. A year or two ago, my friends and I couldn't park in front of my house for a week because some Fox series was lensing a block or two away.

This is tolerated, apparently on the premise that it's good for the local economy. If you tell the studios they can't freely film on our streets, they're going to go use the streets of Vancouver or Dallas or some other city. (I mention Dallas because a few years ago, I was one of the producers of a TV pilot that was filmed there. The project wasn't of sufficient magnitude to have much impact on the finances of the great city of Dallas but the city's local film boards lavished us with freebees and perks, and for years after, I was inundated with mailings promising me the world to bring more film shoots to their town. I got the feeling that if I'd called up and said, "I'll come down there with a camcorder and shoot vacation footage but I want sexual favors from every good-looking woman in town," that could have been arranged.)

So to compete with that, L.A. will let filmmakers do just about anything anywhere for a few hundred bucks worth of permit fees. And in light of the new Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie, more than a few people are asking why, and wondering if Bruce and his folks wouldn't be happier in Toronto. Live Free or Die Hard has received permission to close off streets all around L.A. Airport — where after all, there's almost never any traffic — and to blow things up on them. A recent announcement proclaimed to all...

Airline passengers and airport workers are advised that a major motion picture production near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) may cause delays in getting to the airport beginning this week.

Filming will occur in three periods:
Thursday, Nov. 2 through Sunday, Nov. 5
Wednesday, Nov. 8 through Sunday, Nov. 12
Saturday, Nov. 18 through Sunday, Nov. 19

During all periods, Imperial Highway – one of the main access roads into and out of LAX -- is scheduled to be closed in both directions between Nash Street and Aviation Blvd. from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and the westbound lanes closed an additional three hours until 7 p.m. The film studio has indicated one westbound lane will be kept open whenever possible to allow for airport cargo traffic ONLY to access the LAX Imperial Cargo Center at the intersection of Imperial Highway and Aviation Blvd.

In addition, during three weekends of Nov. 4-5, Nov. 11-12, and Nov. 18-19, eastbound Century Freeway I-105 between La Cienega to Sepulveda Blvds. and the freeway connectors at I-105 east to I-405 north and south will be closed from 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., while westbound I-105 during these times will be closed on an unannounced, intermittent (or rolling) basis. Westbound I-105 also will be closed on two Sundays, Nov. 5 and Nov. 12, from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m.

Traffic plans call for motorists using westbound Imperial Highway during closed periods to detour at the intersection of Imperial Highway and Aviation Blvd. If headed toward the LAX passenger terminal area, motorists will be diverted one mile on northbound Aviation Blvd. to westbound Century Blvd. into the airport. If headed to the west side of LAX or county beaches, motorists will be diverted three miles on southbound Aviation Blvd. to westbound El Segundo Blvd. to northbound Sepulveda Blvd. to resume on westbound Imperial Highway.

During each of the three Saturday closures of eastbound I-105, airport officials are advising that approximately 300 to 350 construction trucks related to LAX's South Airfield Improvement Project are expected to be routed on southbound Sepulveda Blvd. to eastbound El Segundo Blvd. to access the I-405 freeway.

The production company stated in its letter of intent and permit applications that it will use pyrotechnics (explosives) and "gunfire for the entire time" of the filming. One helicopter is scheduled to be used during weekend filming, and "there will be larger explosions" with accompanying smoke early morning of Sundays, Nov. 5 and 12.

Now, that sounds bad but it's actually worse than that...because they're also putting out bulletins that the schedule is changing so you may not be able to count on those dates and times. It pretty much comes down to: Stay the hell away from the airport for most of November.

So is this really good for the city? In an editorial this morning, the Los Angeles Times argues it is not, and I think they're right. Any benefits to the local industry have to be weighed against all the delayed flights or crew members...and there must be some businesses that will suffer from having all that traffic rerouted.

This is a problem that has quietly festered for some time. When they screwed up the parking in my neighborhood for a week, I didn't raise a stink because it was only for a week. I figured that mounting an effective protest would take longer than that (which it probably would have) and that it wouldn't happen again for a long time (which it hasn't). But airport street closures affect too many people and I have the feeling this is going to be the outrage that forces a change in the rules. Finally.

• Posted at 11:46 AM · LINK