A note in the Globe detailed a party celebrating film production in Massachusetts:
Boston will never be a Hollywood back lot, but tax incentives aimed at bringing more movie and TV deals to the Bay State may be helping. At a party Monday to celebrate the new law, people in high places were predicting the Hub could soon become a hot property with moviemakers.
And Inside Track had this to say:
“We have been working with Ben [Affleck] and his group and he’s doing everything he possibly can to make the film work in Massachusetts,” said Mass. Film Bureau leading lady Robin Dawson. “Ben is very loyal to the region.”
…Dawson reports that there are eight big-budget productions currently scouting in the state thanks to the tax-incentive package that was signed into law in January.
“In my more than 10 years I’ve never had this many projects scouting simultaneously,” Dawson said. “I think this spring Massachusetts is going to bust open.” Of the eight projects, two are “major TV pilots,” Dawson said. The rest are feature films.
The state had trouble attracting movie business before enacting the tax breaks due to the region’s notoriously fickle weather, high labor costs and other factors. But give Hollywood cash incentives and all is forgiven, apparently!
Maybe the film boosters have it right. At the very least, Boston has a rich architectural history and a dynamic urban fabric, one part "European"-scale city, one part contemporary American metropolis. It’s going to be a great place for filmmakers wanting a little more local color than Toronto and for period pieces. Of course, we’re not living up to our potential. It’s not a cheap city for anything. Reportedly the Teamsters have traditionally made shooting in Massaschusetts difficult. And we lack the kind of cultural "infrastructure" for filmmakers that a bigger city has. Six (presumably major) features seems like a modest yet significant sign of the state turning things around.
Ultimately, we should ask why we want local film shoots: is it truly an economic development issue, or a matter of cultural pride or touristic propaganda? But whatever the reason, let’s say we’re behind the goal of more film shooting and production here. I think it’s short sighted to think merely in terms of tax incentives without addressing the accompanying film culture the city has to offer. That includes:
Non-profit media centers. See Brian Newman’s discussion of the death of nonprofit media arts centers. The importance of those non-profit associations are immeasurable for struggling local filmmakers. Boston Film/Video Association is among those that have died, and I don’t see anything jumping into the vaccum.
Schools. For all the universities and colleges in Boston, film and media higher education is not our strong suit. That may be beyond the purview of state government. Then again, some well-placed dollars for an independent film grant through the Mass Film Bureau is the sort of support that can encourage student filmmaking and film education.
Festivals. Local film festivals are an integral part of sustaining interest in film, in developing audiences of local product, and for building the city’s prestige in the consciousness of an industry whose sights are understandably elsewhere. See Paul Harrill’s comments on the value of regional film-festivals; though geared toward non-coastal regions, much of what he said could apply to us. Our track record, unfortunately is mixed. The Boston Film Festival has been floundering the last couple of years, a fact I’ve been lamenting, as it really is a wonderful chance to see international film offerings. On the other hand, the Boston Independent Film Festival, the Provincetown Film Festival and the Roxbury Film Festival have done a good job building up organization and presence.
Theatres/Exhibition. Harvard Square has been a bulwark of the city’s film culture, but the Brattle is struggling to stay afloat and the Harvard Film Archive threatens to close its doors to the general public. With very little effort, a little carrot and stick from the state could shore up these institutions. Meanwhile, the other cultural institutions - the MFA, the ICA, the new centers being planned for the greenway - could be encouraged to incorporate film or participate in a larger film culture.
For-profit culture industry. Scout Productions has been a success story. So, too, have Arnold Communications and Hill Holiday. Television and advertising have a tangible spillover into the economy of film production. They give employment to filmmakers, editors, DPs, writers, sound specialists, what have you, and they give business to a number of support industries, such as film developing and set construction.
There’s no easy answer here: we’re not New York or Los Angeles, or even Chicago. We’re not going to be a number one site of film or television production, much less pre- or post-production. And every second city in the country is playing the same games, offering tax incentives and throwing gala parties for Hollywood dignitaries.
On top of that, investing in local film culture may seem like a dicey venture, and I’m sure plenty would rather leave it to the marketplace. But I guess I’m saying two related things here. First, if we’re concerned about the cultural value of seeing Boston on film, we should think as much about the possibilities of independent films for showing the city as about bigger features using the city as a location. Funny Ha Ha and Lift may have smaller audiences, but the tradeoff is that they say something about our city that is more vital than Blown Away. Second, there is an interplay between film industry and film culture. Let’s not get so starry-eyed we think that Ben Affleck’s attention is all that matters.
No comments have been added to this post yet.