|
On location: Why smart producers are looking east
It’s hard to understand how California managed to lose its glitter as a production hub. Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose incredible success is directly attributable to the movies, has done so little to keep production in the so-called Golden State it’s scandalous. If not deliberate.
He’s been a godsend for "off-Hollywood," though. New Mexico, Louisiana and Michigan have all made robust efforts to attract and keep production in their states by marketing their diversity and offering extremely attractive incentives and rebates.
Even though the movie studios are based in Los Angeles, they’re happy to shoot where it costs less. They’re corporations, after all. The bottom line rules. To think that they have a philosophical commitment to keeping production in L.A. is naive.
As an independent producer/director, I’m interested in cost and comfort. The comfort of shooting a low or modestly budgeted film or TV show in an environment that is not papered in red tape and outrageous restrictions cannot be underestimated, especially on a non-studio budget.
Shooting in Los Angeles requires a type of administrative navigation that is not production-friendly. Because the town has been raped by caring and uncaring crews, you’re at a disadvantage the moment you plant your tripod on the sidewalk. Residents, not surprisingly, have been browbeaten by the process. Permits are required for everything. Police must be present. Parking is a nightmare. Different cities have very different rules.
What all this means is that it’s tough to shoot an indie film in L.A. So why do it?
L.A. isn’t set up to be indie-friendly — certainly not anymore. With the cost of living and breathing so high here, those costs are added to your production. Wherever you go, everybody has their hand out. Many are under the misguided impression that all filmmakers have dollar bills shooting out of their butts. A small percentage do. Most don’t.
California’s loss as a film hub is another state’s gain. Having spent a couple of years in Detroit in the early days of my modest career (in production and distribution), I’m so happy to hear that Michigan has been successful at attracting filmmakers of both the independent and studio persuasion.
If anything can be learned from my hometown — Melbourne, Australia — which has a thriving indie scene, it is that filmmakers are not viewed by the bureaucracies as The Enemy. The city’s film office exists to serve producers, not erect roadblocks that handicap production.
L.A. lost its luster because the bureaucracies adopted a siege mentality. Filmmakers were seen as short-term sources of revenue, rather than long-term mainstays who were in a position to become employers and cultural ambassadors.
The short-term view has driven people and financing away. On such an unstable local foundation that is totally predicated on fees and rules, how could anybody be expected to build a business?
Although some Hollywood "tent poles" are making money, the majority of films produced are losing money. It’s a very tough time for the indies because traditional distribution modes are no longer working. Almost without exception, theatrical releases of indie pics lose lots of money. Advertising costs are too high. Print costs are prohibitive. DVD isn’t what it used to be. Cable isn’t paying 20% of what it used to for titles.
It’s a time of massive change.
States such as Michigan, Louisiana and New Mexico can be part of an indie production renaissance. Because traditional methods of distribution are becoming anachronisms for indies, the financial losses are becoming greater. What indie producers need to confront is the fact that their budgets need to drop in order to embrace new methods of distribution such as streaming and VOD (video on demand). Right now, almost nobody is making money from streaming their movies. The process is creating awareness and providing an immediate global window for films, but the cash is not rolling in. One of the greatest obstacles in getting consumers to part with cash is the entrenched view that movies are something you get for free online. Challenging this philosophy requires time and steel balls.
With the incentives and rebates that a state like Michigan can offer, filmmaking can become a less risky proposition. Just as important, the state can position itself as a preferred foundation for future production. But the bureaucracies need to understand that a serious filmmaking culture takes time to grow beyond a cottage industry. Their commitment to the industry needs to be solid and unerring. Ultimately, they will reap the rewards in jobs and tax revenue.
It is no longer smart to position your films for domestic audiences when the advent of Internet distribution can give you an instant, international audience that is many times greater than your domestic one.
This development is another reason why L.A. and New York are becoming more irrelevant as production centers. Because budgets need to drop in order to fall in line with revised revenue projections of new distribution models, the traditional production hubs are proving much too costly.
Shooting features, TV shows and Web dramas in states like Michigan — where costs are lower, resources are plentiful, and the environment is much more production-friendly — is the smartest thing a producer can do.
The long-term benefits are enormous.
M. Savage
Mark Savage is an independent, Australian-born filmmaker who has made features, commercials, and documentaries. He has also worked on the distribution side of the fence with stints at Orion Pictures, Village/Roadshow, and most recently, Absurda (David Lynch's company). He lectures regularly on distribution, exhibition, and production, and is lives in Laguna Beach, California, a comfortable distance from LA.
| 
