Wrong Slant on Runaway Production
Reading your Aug. 9 editorial “Runaway Hysterics” and the headlines and lead paragraphs of your Aug. 2 story, “Eyes Wide Shut,” we hoped to be convinced that the dramatic increase in runaway film and television production was, as you stated, “not true,” “more smoke than substance” and simply a case of “hype.”
After all, the more than 56,000 Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America members living in Southern California not to mention the many businesses, vendors and independent producers involved in U.S. film and television production would be relieved to know that, contrary to everything they’ve experienced first-hand, runaway production is just myth.
Unfortunately, what we discovered were conclusions unsupported by the evidence. In fact, much of the statistical evidence offered by the Business Journal actually confirmed the findings of the Monitor Co.’s report, and showed that runaway production is indeed having a significant impact on the men and women working in this country’s film and television industry. To wit:
? In the midst of the greatest economic boom this country has ever experienced, production days are down sharply in Los Angeles County.
? The number of films produced for television that have run away from the United States for economic reasons has gone from 30 in 1990 to 139 in 1998 a 363 percent increase. Over the same time frame, the number of films for television produced in the U.S. has actually declined.
? The number of big-budget film productions over $25 million leaving the United States for economic reasons has grown from zero in 1990 to 24 in 1998.
? Money spent on domestic film and television production is down sharply across the country: 35 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Texas and 37.5 percent in Washington.
Strange, then, that confronted with such strong evidence, you were able to declare that runaway production is nothing but a Hollywood fantasy.
Equally disturbing was the reliance on inapposite facts, anecdotal evidence and unnamed sources. For instance, the number of writers employed in the industry has no bearing on runaway production. Writers can write anywhere; they are virtually unaffected by out-of-country production. The California Film Commission statistics you cited don’t record films shot in the United States and other countries, they simply reflect whether any part of the movie including post production occurred in a location. A movie such as “The Matrix,” for example, which was shot entirely in Australia but posted in Alameda, was counted in the total for U.S. “starts.”
This issue is a complicated but important one. That’s why the DGA and SAG turned to the Monitor Co., a firm with an international reputation for excellence, to give us straight answers. Even your story, once past the headlines, describes a significant trend toward out-of-country production, spurred in part by substantial tax incentives offered by other countries.
The fact is, the Monitor Co.’s report is the only complete study that examines the impact of runaway production on the U.S. economy and on “below-the-line” U.S. film and television production workers. Everything else, including the facts and figures you cite, offers only partial or misleading snapshots of the issue.
RICHARD MASUR
President
Screen Actors Guild
JACK SHEA
Directors Guild of America
