Tag Archives: change

Disinfo Rehab With the Chronicle, City Hall, And Hollywood

Here we go again.
On the heels of some parliamentary wizardry that killed the latest tax credit package for “film production,” the Chronicle, right on cue, had had a front page article bemoaning the “loss” of film productions in town. Predictably, it talked solely about “tax credits” being offered by various local and national governments, and how SF is “missing the boat” because we’re just not offering up enough gimmies to Hollywood.
The problem with the article is that it narrowly defines the “whys” of the lack of film production in San Francisco without considering some very important facts that are important to any film producer, large or small, who wishes to film anywhere on location ( like the fact that previous San Francisco tax credits haven’t worked out at all like promised.) Yet nowhere in the Chronicle story is this noted, despite the fact this isn’t a state secret.
I’ve written about this issue before because like many of us, enjoy seeing Our Fair City in TV and movies. Bullitt and the first Dirty Harry movies remain some of my all time favorites, along with Vertigo, to name a few.
Having worked on a documentary about the Screen Actor’s Guild, I’ve had a lot of time to study the issue of film production here and abroad, and have had a chance to talk to a lot of people in the industry and in the unions who have studied this issue for literally decades.
So let’s do a little disinfo rehab on the subject and see what we get:
First, it’s important to remember that a tremendous amount of film credits in Canada cited in the Chronicle are given to film productions that are primarily created by Canadians to defend and enhance Canadian culture and “Canadiana” (yes that’s a word). Thus, to compare any incentive program offered up by a budget-challenged small city to that of the Mighty Canadian Govenrment Protecting Canada’s Culture is comparing apple and oranges.
It’s also important, up until the dollar’s recent decline, the weak Canadian Dollar made filming very cheap, which was the initial appeal for filming in the Great White North. (Ever wonder why so many Sci-Fi channel movies and TV shows look the same? Vancouver!) Don’t discount the additional appeal of doing your work in a nation whose cities look like America, but aren’t beset by violent crime and filth, either.
Also, as I’ve tried to tell the chess club brains at City Hall, filming in San Francisco is expensive for reasons you can’t give a tax break for. Crews are going to cost more, because rent and taxes here are extremely high. Neighborhood folks, well established in the siren whine of Today’s City, will complain about the inconvenience of a long film production, “jobs” be damned. Crime is out of control in San Francisco – we don’t even prosecute murderers here, much less property theft. Anyone wanna risk having their brand new movie camera stolen in SF? I doubt it.
And most importantly, we simply do not have the sound stages and related facilities that Los Angeles and its environs enjoy. That alone is going to make it much more feasible to come in to town for a week of exterior shots, then shuffle off to Vancouver or LA to finish the job.
All important topics worthy of coverage by policy folk and media folk. There’s plenty of more creative solutions to enhance our economy with jobs and investment from the film industry others have proposed.
The problem is, no one at City Hall or at the Chronicle gives a damn about any of that.

Continue reading

“Change” Isn’t an Issue, it’s a Theme, Folks…

How dumb do you have to be to report about national politics these days? Case in point – every TV news yakker and whatnot all saying that “change is the issue” because Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses.
“Change” is not an “issue,” it’s a thematic element. What is the “change issue,” pray tell? It’s an example of how the media love to engage in buzzwords and spend most of their time responding to the word of the day, instead of really reporting anything.
For me, the most interesting thing was hearing Obama speak the other day, noting that in the past, you could get a lot of Democrats to show up to an event because they hated Bush’s policies – but that now, folks were looking to the future, and more people were showing up because they want to be for something that will change the broken dynamic that has failed to do much of anything worthwhile for anyone not in the elite.
That’s going to hurt Hillary “I was married to a President so I should be President” Clinton, who really doesn’t have a whole lot to say about anything that’s going to make things much different than they are now. If anything, she’s the kind of person as President who’d happily bomb people in another country just to show a pollster how “tough” she is. But she really doesn’t care much about the problems you or I face.
At least Obama’s trying!