“USA Today” Article re Louisiana Film Biz: Actual Journalism or Factually Incorrect Propaganda?

I’ve never had much respect for USA Today, but their August 2 article about the film industry in Louisiana made me cringe.  It’s rife with problems….

Let’s start with the article’s second & third sentences:

In the 1990s, filmmakers often traveled to Canada.  But that eventually became less fashionable, and these days the industry is migrating in a different direction — to Louisiana. “L.A. South” has become the go-to spot for shooting movies.

First, filmmakers have “often” been traveling to Canada for decades, not just the 1990′s.  Second, Canada really took off as a filming destination in 1997, when the first major film incentives were put in place there; Toronto did well and Vancouver was dubbed “Hollywood North.”  Filmmakers did not (do not) go to Canada because it’s “fashionable”, they went there because the film incentives were too generous to pass on.  Economically, it was just the smart thing to do, if nothing else.   If Canada is capturing fewer US productions now, it’s not because it “became less fashionable”…it became less attractive financially due to the race to the the bottom in the US.  And what is this whole “L.A. South” BS?  I think they use and prefer “Hollywood South”, but I digress.

Perhaps the fourth sentence is less problematic…perhaps not:

Even before the economic recession hit Hollywood, the state of Louisiana had been quietly gaining stature as the place to make quality movies and stretch dollars.

Has the recession “hit Hollywood” all that hard?  Certainly the L.A. industry workers have seen better times, but that’s not because the economy was better or worse…they see less work now because other jurisdictions are spending millions to steal an industry.  The major studios and the conglomerates that own them (with the exception of MGM) are doing fairly well.  The box office had a record year in 2009 and while DVD/Blu-Ray sales are not seeing the record growth they had in the past, they are still essentially static (at some point, Americans can’t grow their film collection if they own all the movies they want).  As for the claim that Louisiana has “quietly” gained stature as a film location?  Maybe it’s news to many Americans, clearly  USA Today was out of the loop until now, but in the film industry, news of Louisiana has been anything but quiet.  Being “quiet” about the incentives in Louisiana is not how the state became the third largest filming center in North America.

It seems to me like the article had an identity crisis about how to characterize Louisiana:

The state subbed for Texas, Colorado and New Mexico in Drive Angry, Lussier says.

The consummate versatile character actor, Louisiana has also played Utah, Washington, D.C., and London. “The film industry wants to find places it can reinvent and make look like anything it needs,” Lussier says. “There’s a lot of opportunity do that in Louisiana.”

The subsequent heading in the article was titled “New Orleans as ANYTOWN, USA”.  In my opinion, most people have a love affair with New Orleans because it is not “anytown”, the Crescent Moon City, its French Quarter and the dynamic rebuild of the Ninth Ward are unique and distinct.  It’s not that New Orleans or Louisiana can’t sub for “anytown” or even “anynation”–it has.  But virtually anywhere movies are made can serve as proxys for “anytown”, Los Angeles comes to mind.  In short, filmmakers are not flocking to Louisiana because they celebrate its generic nature.  Why is Louisiana so “fashionable”, according to the article:

Those who have shot there point to several factors contributing to the region’s appeal: diversity of scenery, financial incentives and proficient crews.

I’ll address the “diversity of scenery” in a moment.  As for the “proficient crews”, while the state has made progress of growing a small Louisiana-based pool of industry workers, much of the filming taking place there in recent years brought in their out-of-state film crews with them.  In fact, I wrote about efforts in the state to relocate California film workers to Louisiana HERE.  Let’s face it, no doubt Louisiana offers a flavor and charm for some films, Benjamin Button comes to mind, but the ONLY tangible factor “contributing” to Louisiana’s appeal to filmmakers are the film incentives.  Period.  And while the article does acknowledge the film incentives, it seems to downplay their significance.  Most of article gushes on how charming and versatile the scenery is and the segment on the tax incentive is buried deep in the article and factually inaccurate:

Tax incentives best in USA

The hauntingly creative vibe may be palpable, but the bottom line is equally alluring.

The state offers the most competitive economic and tax incentives of any in the country. A system of financial perks was enacted after Hurricane Katrina destroyed $81 billion in property and killed 1,836 people in 2005.

“We approached it like a business, and it keeps (filmmakers) coming back, based on our reliability and stability,” Stelly says. “For every dollar you spend in the state, we’ll give you 30% back (in rebates). And we give you an additional 5% for hiring Louisiana residents on productions.”

Tax incentives can be sold as credits or used to offset personal or corporate income tax, he says.

“As things get more expensive, you have to go wherever you get the budget relief,” Lussier notes. “You can no longer use Mulholland Drive for your backwoods road movie.”

If “best” tax incentive means the biggest, then Michigan beats Louisiana by a wide margin.  Louisiana is among the most competitive, but it’s tied with places like Georgia, Massachusetts, Connecticut etc.  That the USA Today would get such a fundamental fact wrong is inexcusable.  Do they fact check anything over there?

Like most sweeping articles about the Louisiana film industry, this one included some discussion on how Hollywood is helping rebuild the state after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  But here again, there are problems:

There is also the sense among filmmakers that they are helping an area that sorely needs a hand in bouncing back from one of the worst natural disasters in history.

“Louisiana has been through so much, and I’m glad to be able to make a film there,” says Nicole Kidman, who is shooting the 2011 film Trespass in Shreveport this summer with Nicolas Cage.

“The economy desperately needs the film business,” Lurie says. “And it’s fantastic watching people get employed. We hired a thousand people to be extras and put a couple of hundred bucks in their pockets, and that’s helpful to the economy. The film commission is among the most proactive I’ve ever seen.”

Between that obliging spirit and the financial incentives, Lurie says, “It doesn’t pay to make movies in Los Angeles anymore. You can save too much money by going out of town.”

I have no doubt that many, if not most, Hollywood celebrities and above-the-line people like directors or producers are genuinely altruistic and think they can only be helping the poor and battered state of Louisiana.  And no doubt, any Louisiana resident who is gainfully employed by the industry will also feel like Hollywood is lending a helping hand…they have a job when many do not, after all.  But what is the cost of this perceived good will?  Would a new Louisiana film worker feel the same way about this perception if they met their California-based counterpart who is under-worked, if not unemployed because of the state film incentives hollowing out Hollywood?  And while I am sure Nicole Kidman has a good heart, her comments rang hollow to me.  She is not making a film in Louisiana to help the state recover, she is in Louisiana shooting a film for the same reason she shot “Cold Mountain”, the US Civil War epic, in Romania:  economics.  On that shoot, extras in her movie were compensated less than for the use of a goat.

In almost every state that has a film incentive, backers of the program talk about how their economy “needs the film business.”  I am very sympathetic to the hard economic times around the nation, some places even more than others.  But the only economy (sans perhaps New York) that “desperately needs” Hollywood is, in fact Hollywood and California.  Thousands of jobs now going to Louisiana or Iowa or Michigan etc. means they were taken, or come at the expense of, the jobs, careers and, often, the family legacies of thousands of skilled Hollywood craftsmen and artisans who made Hollywood a defacto center of the world.  True altruism and an “obliging spirit” to help should be those in the industry committed to it’s home and core in California.  People like Micheal Bay, John Favreau, Joss Wheedon and so on are better examples of an “obliging spirit,” at least towards the industry they work in.

I do think the article was tapping into something real, however, with the following:

The combination of skill and energy is something particularly appreciated by those coming from Hollywood.

“In L.A., everyone is exhausted by the film business, with all the noise and shooting at night,” Stamm says. “Down there, everyone is not jaded. There is still an enthusiasm about the whole thing.”

Without a doubt, one of the biggest problems for Hollywood and L.A. is that people there, the larger community, takes the industry for granted.  Hollywood films are not new or exciting to many, they are a reality of every day life that has been there before most of them were born.  Perhaps now that California is getting an idea of what it means to lose the magic of movies, they will be shaken from apathy and learn to fall in love with the industry all over again.  And I think there are signs this is finally happening.  In the following bit, I got the sense that enthusiasm was not prompting industry workers to move to Louisiana, but rather basic survival.  As the property master mentioned below said, they “have to go where the work is”:

So much enthusiasm, in fact, that some Los Angeles residents have moved south with the jobs.

Producer Joshua Throne made several films in the state, the latest being The Expendables. He has homes in both Louisiana and Los Angeles. Throne’s next project is The Technician, co-starring Kevin Bacon and Kurt Russell, which will shoot in Louisiana in January.

“There’s such a zest for life here,” he says. “There’s lots of good food, good people, wonderful history, and it still has the Southern charm.”

Lewis and his wife also have made the move to New Orleans. “I love L.A., I really do,” he says. “And I’m sorry that productions are running away from L.A., but this is a really easy and cost-efficient place to make movies.”

Ed Borasch Jr., a property master, moved from Southern California. “I have to go where the work is,” he says. “It’s just so much nicer and quieter here, and the traffic’s not as crazy, and the people are super friendly. You feel like you’re welcomed here. I lived in Los Angeles for 15 years, and that was a great run for me, but the work dried up, and now my time is here.” Meanwhile, he’s gotten married, had a baby and laid down roots.

There was absolutely no mention whatsoever of cost concerns for financing the film incentive or whether it’s a sound public policy option given budget shortfalls, which really did not surprise me.

Tags: adrian mcdonald, california, california film incentive, film and television employment, film and television production, Film Incentives, Hollywood, Louisiana, Louisiana film incentive, motion picture employment, Runaway Production, runaway productions, state film incentives