The Film Industry and State Tax/Cash Rebates

An article in The Denver Post's business section ("Could Colorado become Collywood?" 9-11-07) pretty much states that Colorado is losing a large chunk of potential film productions to the neighboring state of New Mexico primarily because New Mexico offers larger rebates to production crews when they film there. One such film mentioned is 3:10 to Yuma starring Russell Crow. Within the article it states that Colorado offers "10 percent cash rebate on film productions of at least $100,000 if the production company spends 75 percent of its budget with Colorado businesses and hires 75 percent of its crew locally. 3:10 to Yuma apparently held a casting call in Denver for actors to show up in New Mexico. They didn't mention what New Mexico offers for filming in the state in a comparative figure so there's no real way to place the figures side-by-side for the purposes of this article.

You would think that on the surface, as a Colorado citizen, this might spur me to write my state representatives to offer more to movie companies to shoot here. You also might think that as a native of Colorado who is almost insanely proud of her state I would jump at the chance to have Colorado featured in a big budget film. If you think that, you are wrong. My concern about such "rebates" is that it blurs the line between government and free enterprise for a temporary blip to boost revenue.

It's no secret that state and local governments offer incentives for business relocation. These tax breaks are commonly known around my circles as corporate handouts. Long-term business relocation has placed cities and towns across the nation in competition, which isn't such a bad thing, but I do have issues with temporary business coming in and out and receiving benefits. Does the film industry pour money into local economies? Of course they do but other groups do as well such as a community college baseball tournament, a rodeo or a convention and many return year after year. I honestly haven't seen local governments clamoring to offer incentives for these organizations; that's usually handled by private business/private economic organizations in the form of group rates for hotels and other such discounts to lure the Average Joe to staying or eating at their establishments. Las Vegas is a prime example of private business offering rates to lure private money into private enterprise although I must admit that I don't know what Las Vegas does on a government level to bring in such groups. Honestly, they don't need to bring them in, Vegas has been long a place for groups to gather.

Does a film really do a state or local economy justice? I'm not convinced. Take, for example, the movie National Lampoons: Vacation starring Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. They did a tiny bit of filming here and it wasn't until the advent of The International Movie Database that I could even confirm that they actually shot scenes here. Often, it takes a sleuth to really "study" if you will, to go through the credits on many big-budget films to even determine movie shoot locations and honestly, most people don't care. What they care about is being entertained and having value for that entertainment dollar.

Should a state or local government really push for a major Hollywood production to be filmed in a certain location? My answer is no. I can sympathize with the small film director or producer in this instance because regardless if Colorado were to offer better incentives, most small films will never see those benefits, they simply don't generate enough money. My main issue, however, is major movie productions and major stars make a ton of money even if the movie flops yet expect states and localities to offer tax breaks for their presence.

If Matt Damon (who is reportedly the most bankable Hollywood movie star according to some random Canadian website) were to come to a state like Colorado to act in a blockbuster film, Colorado will not see the benefits regardless if it were to become "the" movie that won a ton of awards through the Golden Globes or the Oscars. Damon and the movie company benefit exponentially while a state only gets a small mention in the credits, if even that, in which the general public really doesn't care about.

Movies only promote the creative side of the writers, actors and directors. The actors make the movie a success or a flop if it's a film that strikes it big in reviews. But what sets movies apart from an industrial plant that sets up shop for the long term is, is that film revenue is fleeting. Movies are entertainment. A plant or a call center offer local increases in revenue on a continuous basis, movies don't.

Some might argue that "funding the arts is a path to..." some kind of twisted salvation or enlightenment. This is not the case for major movies. Do you really think that having a movie shot in your neighborhood will make or break your city's budget? It simply wont in probably 90% of the communities those producers, casting directors and their counterparts push. The bottom line is, big budget movies only benefit big entertainment companies and their movie stars. Granted there are small benefits that a film crew may return again but in the reality of creative pursuits, the best directors are going to (or should) look for filming locations that best suit the vision of the art and not film in a location because they get "great benefits" that amount to handouts.

So no, I don't support Colorado jumping on the Hollywood bandwagon and creating more incentives to film here. There doesn't seem to be much benefit and honestly, if an actor comes to Colorado and the film is a success, it means beans in the scheme of things. Colorado has enough of its own merits to film here that include unprecedented scenery, a rich history and a larger population of talent to choose from than most of our neighboring states. This is country you can't find much elsewhere. It simply can't be matched. If Hollywood types can't see that, they are missing out and it's not because the State of Colorado doesn't offer benefits, it's because their vision is focused only on money rather than their creative vision. Which, as a producer of web sites, writing and even my photography I find rewards in the pursuit rather than my bottom line.

I don't have any immediate plans to become some kind of internet guru or a photographer that you want to buy books for your coffee table and my writing needs tweaking. But I don't expect that in the pursuit of my dreams that my fellow Coloradoans foot the bill for my own creative pursuits. Being creative can also mean doing what you can do to survive and maintaining that passion when you are off the clock. Most big-time Hollywood directors, actors and writers are by and large not those I consider hurting for artistic freedom, time nor money. They don't need a tax rebate to make their film a success.