Comments on: A Public Option for Filmmakers http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/indiefilm/public-option/ Movie Producer, Distributor, Exhibitor, Columbia University Professor and Cubs Fan Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:18:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: The Chutry Experiment » Thursday Links (Clearwater, Florida, Edition) http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/indiefilm/public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-244 The Chutry Experiment » Thursday Links (Clearwater, Florida, Edition) Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:16:58 +0000 http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/?p=682#comment-244 [...] Ira Deutchman’s blog a few days ago, Tyler Davidson issued a call for a “public option” for filmmakers.  There is, of course, some public support for [...] [...] Ira Deutchman’s blog a few days ago, Tyler Davidson issued a call for a “public option” for filmmakers.  There is, of course, some public support for [...]

]]> By: Tyler Davidson Discusses Public Funding for Indie Filmmaking : Jon Reiss News http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/indiefilm/public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-232 Tyler Davidson Discusses Public Funding for Indie Filmmaking : Jon Reiss News Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:35:53 +0000 http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/?p=682#comment-232 [...] out this great post from Ira Deutchman’s blog.  Tyler Davidson makes an interesting comparison between the recent debate in health care reform [...] [...] out this great post from Ira Deutchman’s blog.  Tyler Davidson makes an interesting comparison between the recent debate in health care reform [...]

]]> By: Tyler Davidson http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/indiefilm/public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-229 Tyler Davidson Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:28:34 +0000 http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/?p=682#comment-229 Nick: The notions of saving American independent film and bolstering the national economy are not mutually exclusive. Certainly if it's presented to the public from the former perspective, it's a loser. (I can already hear the demagoguery.) But this type of policy makes all the sense in the world if you believe that our country must play to its strengths during periods of economic recovery. During WWII, we tapped into our country's heavy industry and manufacturing base. But now much of that infrastructure is gone or lost to other fast-developing industrial nations. Now we turn to sectors like healthcare and technology. Why not entertainment? As I mentioned in my essay, the U.S. remains uniquely positioned and advantaged as the leading entertainment content provider in the world. This global reach is mostly Hollywood's, true enough. But we've heretofore had a flourishing independent film community as well, and the combined result is a substantial nationwide crew base and a vast network of universities and vocational programs now offering filmmaking instruction. The filmmaking population is exploding, but we're not ready to capitalize on it. Critics of government involvement will point to recent studies showing that state incentive programs don't work; that the multiplier effect on local economies isn't being realized. The truth is that the multiplier is there, but not always contained within the borders of the states that are making the public investment. Tax credits are only one part of the equation. The other components must be there too: most notably, a local crew base, along with production and post-production facilities. Of course states aren't seeing the full, positive impact from productions that import crew from Los Angeles and do their sound stage shooting and post work in New York. Michigan has the right idea. They're making a massive investment in the film industry, from large production tax credits, to state-sponsored crew training programs, to the building of giant studio complexes. But they still need more films. Independent films that aren't being financed right now. I'm by no means a policy expert, but I'm generally proposing a big national commitment to strengthening our film industry. I'm talking about an investment in training, infrastructure, development and production financing. Canada and the United Kingdom (specifically with respect to the UK Film Council) both offer models worthy of review. With all the interest and talent at the ready, it seems crazy to me that we should be limited to two production centers, one on each coast. Nick: The notions of saving American independent film and bolstering the national economy are not mutually exclusive. Certainly if it’s presented to the public from the former perspective, it’s a loser. (I can already hear the demagoguery.) But this type of policy makes all the sense in the world if you believe that our country must play to its strengths during periods of economic recovery.

During WWII, we tapped into our country’s heavy industry and manufacturing base. But now much of that infrastructure is gone or lost to other fast-developing industrial nations. Now we turn to sectors like healthcare and technology. Why not entertainment? As I mentioned in my essay, the U.S. remains uniquely positioned and advantaged as the leading entertainment content provider in the world. This global reach is mostly Hollywood’s, true enough. But we’ve heretofore had a flourishing independent film community as well, and the combined result is a substantial nationwide crew base and a vast network of universities and vocational programs now offering filmmaking instruction.

The filmmaking population is exploding, but we’re not ready to capitalize on it.

Critics of government involvement will point to recent studies showing that state incentive programs don’t work; that the multiplier effect on local economies isn’t being realized. The truth is that the multiplier is there, but not always contained within the borders of the states that are making the public investment. Tax credits are only one part of the equation. The other components must be there too: most notably, a local crew base, along with production and post-production facilities. Of course states aren’t seeing the full, positive impact from productions that import crew from Los Angeles and do their sound stage shooting and post work in New York.

Michigan has the right idea. They’re making a massive investment in the film industry, from large production tax credits, to state-sponsored crew training programs, to the building of giant studio complexes. But they still need more films. Independent films that aren’t being financed right now.

I’m by no means a policy expert, but I’m generally proposing a big national commitment to strengthening our film industry. I’m talking about an investment in training, infrastructure, development and production financing. Canada and the United Kingdom (specifically with respect to the UK Film Council) both offer models worthy of review. With all the interest and talent at the ready, it seems crazy to me that we should be limited to two production centers, one on each coast.

]]> By: Nick Dager http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/indiefilm/public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-228 Nick Dager Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:09:37 +0000 http://iradeutchman.com/wordpress/?p=682#comment-228 I've read this at least three times and, although I certainly agree with the issues Tyler raises I still have no clear idea what exactly he's proposing here and how it would work. How do we convince taxpayers in the worst economy in most of our lifetimes that the dollars that could go to (fill in the blank here yourself) would be better spent on independent film? I’ve read this at least three times and, although I certainly agree with the issues Tyler raises I still have no clear idea what exactly he’s proposing here and how it would work. How do we convince taxpayers in the worst economy in most of our lifetimes that the dollars that could go to (fill in the blank here yourself) would be better spent on independent film?

]]>