Filmmaking incentives from States...

[Zensteve]

...telling you what is appropriate?

Well, tbh I'd always assumed that something like this was already the case.

Excerpt:

Texas, like many states, doesn’t pay its share until after a film is finished.

“This is tough for filmmakers to understand, but this is not about their right to make the movie,” Mr. Hudgins explained. “It’s about the public investing in it.”

Entire article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/movies/15credits.html

Thoughts?

 

[rockerrockstar]

I think child eating cannabals is a good reason to not fund the movie.

It is too bad though that they seem to be really sensoring what they are funding. It may be harder to get public funding for R rated or PG 13 non family friendly oriented material.

They want you to promote the state in your movie to get the funding and have good family values I guess. That leaves out a lot of movies that could use the funding. I am sure if it is a major studio production they are more willing to bend the rules.

 

[directorik]

I agree with Ms. Lockwood and Mr. Hudgins. When we filmmakers take
money we lose some of our “rights”. No one is censoring us if we
choose not to take their money.

This producer is looking for anything he can to cut costs. Good
for him. The people putting up the money (or offering the tax
breaks) have the right to pick and choose. If content is a
criteria I believe it is their right to not offer a financial
incentive.

The producer can move the production to another state or choose to
not take the states money. There is ALWAYS a problem when
expecting money from the government.

 

[bird]

No one is censoring us if we
choose not to take their money.

No, but usually an artist submits an appplication outlining a project and then receives approval through a grant which suggests the agency is okay with the project's content. The state's project awarding board, if they did not approve, shouldn't have made the promise of an award.

This producer is looking for anything he can to cut costs. Good
for him. The people putting up the money (or offering the tax
breaks) have the right to pick and choose.

The *people* , I'm assuming, would be the taxpayer and can usually only register their disapproval on government spending after the fact. I know I didn't okay my dollas going to convince Chinese prostitutes not to drink so much, but the NIH decided to use a fraction of my penny to do so.

The producer can move the production to another state or choose to
not take the states money. There is ALWAYS a problem when
expecting money from the government.

Had I been on this film board, I would have found the content to be distasteful, but I'd try my hardest to determine if it were *worth* supporting, and that would involve a number of considerations not related to my personal opinion.

But, you are right, accepting government monies, or any outside investment, always comes with concessions.

 

[David.rhsc]

I agree with Ms. Lockwood and Mr. Hudgins. When we filmmakers take
money we lose some of our “rights”. No one is censoring us if we
choose not to take their money.

This producer is looking for anything he can to cut costs. Good
for him. The people putting up the money (or offering the tax
breaks) have the right to pick and choose. If content is a
criteria I believe it is their right to not offer a financial
incentive.

The producer can move the production to another state or choose to
not take the states money. There is ALWAYS a problem when
expecting money from the government.

Fully agreed. The flip side to this is that states that go too far into holding back incentives based on content will quickly find their state devoid of the millions of dollars that can come through when multiple productions come to town in a given year. It's like supporting your favorite store instead of going to wal-mart.

The Santa Rosa school board kicked "Scream" out of Santa Rosa High School interiors based on the "content" of the film (they let that slip as a reason).

There was a several year gap in feature production in that area as an either indirect or direct result.

Heck. I just wrapped a film (as 1st AC) in a small mountain town off hwy 50. We basically bought out one of the hotels in town for almost an entire month, and that was on a film with a ~100K budget. Peanuts compared to the money that states like Texas could lose on large budget productions.

And seriously. I think the talent spent more of production's money at the local starbucks in a matter of a month than they see in an entire year. Poor PA was doing 4+ runs a day for them until the EP brought the hammer down on it and said 2 a day max.

 

[directorik]

For me, bird, the bottom line is your last line.

The problems with any artist accepting money from the government
are your other points. The sense of entitlement. People believe
(correctly) that the government can not censor. So I believe the
government should not become investors in any art. Artists want to
be free to do exactly what they want, but then they also want the
government to subsidize them.

This creates a very difficult situation for BOTH sides.

Few complain when they can’t get money from the private sector.
It’s rare to hear a claim of censorship when a private funding
company won’t put money into a film they find objectionable. But
they feel that a government agency is censoring them. Private
investors have the right to choose - government agencies don’t.

Doesn’t seem fair to me.

I’m very anti-government. I do not believe the government is
capable of making decisions we the people are allowing them to
make. So I am quite biased. If we filmmaker choose to take these
incentives from the government we should not be shocked when the
government then gets into the content of our work.

We still are free to NOT take their money and make exactly the
movie we want to make. I call foul on filmmakers who feel the
government should hand over money to every, single filmmaker feels
they are worth getting that support.

I agree with you, David.

The reason state governments are offering these incentives to
filmmakers is because the production spends money locally. Not
only do crews spend money at local restaurants and coffee places
but laundry's, hardware stores and bars do great business.

So it is to the governments advantage to encourage more
productions to shoot. But it should NOT be a requirement that
every state government must accept every movie that want to shoot.

 

[bird]

For me, bird, the bottom line is your last line.

The problems with any artist accepting money from the government
are your other points. The sense of entitlement. People believe
(correctly) that the government can not censor. So I believe the
government should not become investors in any art. Artists want to
be free to do exactly what they want, but then they also want the
government to subsidize them.

I honestly don't think most artists who apply for a gov't grant believe they are any more entitled to it than a research scientist believing they deserve support for a study they feel will *better our society*. ( I'd say you have more peeps on welfare who feel they are entitled to these monies compared to the very, very small percentage of tax monies which actually filter down to the individual artist. ) The problem lies in what *we* consider in our best interests. Government grants to artists also isn't, in any sense, a traditional investment....no ROI, with the exception of the creation of a work of art and, perhaps, an ephemeral definition of the everyman within this specific time and culture, or, at it's best, produces a sense of wonder with the viewer.

This creates a very difficult situation for BOTH sides.

Few complain when they can’t get money from the private sector.
It’s rare to hear a claim of censorship when a private funding
company won’t put money into a film they find objectionable. But
they feel that a government agency is censoring them. Private
investors have the right to choose - government agencies don’t.

That's pretty true in general industry as well. You know how hard it is to fire a government employee? lol

I’m very anti-government. I do not believe the government is
capable of making decisions we the people are allowing them to
make.

I quite agree.

So I am quite biased. If we filmmaker choose to take these
incentives from the government we should not be shocked when the
government then gets into the content of our work.

As I said, money from every source other than yourself will be held accountable.

We still are free to NOT take their money and make exactly the
movie we want to make. I call foul on filmmakers who feel the
government should hand over money to every, single filmmaker feels
they are worth getting that support.

Quite frankly, most state and federal agencies agree with you. That is why we've seen a dwindling of grants to individuals over the past two decades. Thankfully, there are still private corporations and fiscal sponsorships out there who see the value of granting to artists.

 

[spinner]

Well, Janet Lockwood is a good egg. No one is fighting as hard for the film industry in Michigan than she is. The problem is that there is an element in the state capitol who is fighting the incentives in the state. Luckily, the film/creative community is fighting tooth and nail to come up against those who take issue with the film industry in Michigan. So Lockwood has to be careful about what is approved right now because the industry is in its infancy and the first "freaky" film to have negative backlash on the state is a fight she and the film office doesn't need at this time.


Secondly, a grant maker is a grant maker. NO ONE has to approve your grant request. If it was turned down, then it was turned down. If you are a filmmaker at your core, you will keep going and look for funding elsewhere. You are not owed a grant. One of the first things you need to know about grant seeking is that you have to ask the right grant maker for a grant. For example: You don't ask the Church of Jesus Christ and Latterday Saints for money to do a film about how negative you are about Christianity. This guys request was rejected. Tough Sh**. Look for another grant.

-- spinner