Sunday, November 29, 2009
Chicagoans in the Industry
Chicago Reader: "I am writing in response to Deanna Isaacs's article 'Is a Soundstage a Sound Investment?', published November 19—a skeptical (at best) examination of the state of Illinois' plans to offset the expenses of converting the empty Ryerson Steel plant into a series of stages for use in motion picture production. In her article, Ms. Isaacs misconstrues the work of another writer, and then, with seemingly no familiarity with her subject—delivers a lackluster assessment of Chicago's film community. I have already responded to Ms. Isaacs directly, on your Web edition."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What I drew from this article was not necessarily the information about the film industry in the Midwest, or the information about the dozens of Locals. What I got out of it is that if you are going to make a statement to the greater public, you really need to back it up and actually have evidence to support your words. Yale believed that Isaacs had no actual evidence or reasonable support for her position, Isaacs disagreed, rebutting Yale's attack. Sometimes it is hard to convince others of your point because of opposing views, but individuals must agree on some facts if they want to even try to understand the other's point.
I am surprised that anyone would claim that Chicago couldn't/doesn't support the arts through the community. Besides actual research, it seems common sense that Chicago is one of the major hubs in the country for theatre/film/tv/etc. I agree with Liz, this article really pointed out that you can't just make claims without support. Today, with the internet, it seems people feel protected by their computer screens to say whatever half hearted claim they want. If you are going to make a claim as drastic as this you need to be better informed on the industry.
The authors response to this complaint seems, again, misguided. Even if the direct number of jobs isn't big enough for her to care, she neglects to mention the other industries that are supported when a movie is filmed, or the non-union workers, of which there are many. I'm not arguing for or against the subsidies, but it's worth noting that when a movie does come to town, it gives money not only to employees directly related to the movie, but also to a number of other businesses when it rents lodging, equipment, cars, and the like. The economic impact is certainly far greater than the union members on the direct payroll.
Post a Comment