Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Variety: On a trip to Vancouver a few years ago, one TV producer surveyed the myriad projects being shot there and labeled the town Hollywood Sleep-Away Camp. Those visitors were drawn less by British Columbia’s natural beauty than by the siren song of its tax credits, along with Canada’s favorable monetary exchange rate.
I can understand why many are concerned about the film industry in LA. As someone who might want to go into film, I am concerned about potential jobs for me. I have read a few articles recently voicing concern about the California film tax rates and how that affects the jobs I might want, I haven't heard that LA still isn't the place to go if I'm looking to get hired. From what I understand LA is still the place to go find a job, but filming will probably happen somewhere else. Since this still affects lower level jobs in LA, it seems to me that California should be focusing on finding jobs for citizens in other areas too. The article was correct in saying there will always be a cheaper place to film and it seems like filming somewhere other than LA is going to continue.
I guess this is an obvious connection to make, but it hadn't occurred to me before: productions moving out of LA to other states or possibly other countries is a similar issue to when businesses move their operations over seas. As the article mentions, there are always going to be less expensive options than shooting in LA. The goal right now is that through the incentives of tax credits along with more "intangible" advantages (experienced crews, comforts of workers being at home) executives will make the decision that LA has more to offer as a filming location. There is only so much the state can do to motivate productions to film there, these producers also need to decide if it is important to them to preserve California's TV and film industry.
I certainly see the point. In an era of multinational companies and an increasingly global economy, I feel that there is little distinction between filming in LA vs filming in Vancouver, especially from a production company's point of view. Although I too am distressed by the loss of work in LA, I can't help but see that nothing will affect a production's film location calculations except the bottom line. I would argue that even the intangible benefits of a crew that gets to live at home are simply another dollar figure representing less room and board a company needs to spend on it's team.
"the hope is these financial incentives will make the home team competitive enough to allow execs to capitalize on more intangible benefits associated with lensing close to home, which include everything from access to experienced crews to letting people sleep in the comfort of their own beds."
I think this is one of the biggest things to keep in mind when talking about getting work back to Hollywood. The crews in LA are some of the most experienced and skilled people in the industry and they are all based in one area for the most part. By moving filming to other places, yes you are giving others the opportunity for jobs, but at the same time you don't always have the same level of skill that you'd have elsewhere. That's something you have to think about when putting together a film or a theatre performance. What is the level of skill will the people you are using have? I know of a couple venues that have housed the tech and opening of a couple of touring shows, but they are no longer considered as viable places, even though they are cheaper, because the skill level of the local technicians was not up to the standards needed. I also wonder if having a more skilled crew could have prevented the death in Atlanta a little while back.
4 comments:
I can understand why many are concerned about the film industry in LA. As someone who might want to go into film, I am concerned about potential jobs for me. I have read a few articles recently voicing concern about the California film tax rates and how that affects the jobs I might want, I haven't heard that LA still isn't the place to go if I'm looking to get hired. From what I understand LA is still the place to go find a job, but filming will probably happen somewhere else. Since this still affects lower level jobs in LA, it seems to me that California should be focusing on finding jobs for citizens in other areas too. The article was correct in saying there will always be a cheaper place to film and it seems like filming somewhere other than LA is going to continue.
I guess this is an obvious connection to make, but it hadn't occurred to me before: productions moving out of LA to other states or possibly other countries is a similar issue to when businesses move their operations over seas. As the article mentions, there are always going to be less expensive options than shooting in LA. The goal right now is that through the incentives of tax credits along with more "intangible" advantages (experienced crews, comforts of workers being at home) executives will make the decision that LA has more to offer as a filming location. There is only so much the state can do to motivate productions to film there, these producers also need to decide if it is important to them to preserve California's TV and film industry.
I certainly see the point. In an era of multinational companies and an increasingly global economy, I feel that there is little distinction between filming in LA vs filming in Vancouver, especially from a production company's point of view. Although I too am distressed by the loss of work in LA, I can't help but see that nothing will affect a production's film location calculations except the bottom line. I would argue that even the intangible benefits of a crew that gets to live at home are simply another dollar figure representing less room and board a company needs to spend on it's team.
"the hope is these financial incentives will make the home team competitive enough to allow execs to capitalize on more intangible benefits associated with lensing close to home, which include everything from access to experienced crews to letting people sleep in the comfort of their own beds."
I think this is one of the biggest things to keep in mind when talking about getting work back to Hollywood. The crews in LA are some of the most experienced and skilled people in the industry and they are all based in one area for the most part. By moving filming to other places, yes you are giving others the opportunity for jobs, but at the same time you don't always have the same level of skill that you'd have elsewhere. That's something you have to think about when putting together a film or a theatre performance. What is the level of skill will the people you are using have? I know of a couple venues that have housed the tech and opening of a couple of touring shows, but they are no longer considered as viable places, even though they are cheaper, because the skill level of the local technicians was not up to the standards needed. I also wonder if having a more skilled crew could have prevented the death in Atlanta a little while back.
Post a Comment