A legislative panel yesterday all but killed a proposal to roll back the state’s film tax credits to 2006 levels and restore a $7 million-per-film cap.

The Joint Committee on Revenue voted to give Rep. Steven D’Amico’s bill a recommendation of “ought not to pass.”

But D’Amico (D-Swansea), who calls the incentives a “blank check” for Hollywood to “walk away with what they can,” plans to still fight for the proposed legislation when the committee’s report hits the House floor.

“Once a bad idea becomes entrenched, it’s hard to dislodge,” he said. “I’m not going to be voting to cut local aid while we’re flushing $100 million a year on perks for Hollywood.”

The committee’s vote followed a hearing last week on the measure that drew both critics and supporters, the latter of which said the incentive is helping businesses grow and creating needed jobs.

“At a time when other economic sectors have seen job rates decline, the film credit has been producing hundreds of millions of dollars in new direct spending in Massachusetts and thousands of Massachusetts jobs,” Joe Maiella, president of the Massachusetts Production Coalition, a group that represents film industry workers, said in a statement.

Gov. Deval Patrick’s separate proposal to help close the state budget gap by imposing a two-year, $50 million annual cap on the film tax credits is still on the table.

By Michael Levenson
Boston Globe Staff
March 12, 2010

A legislative committee yesterday rejected a bill that would have sharply curtailed the state’s tax credit for the film industry, saying the legislation would hurt a thriving industry that is one of the few bright spots in a dour Massachusetts economy.

The Revenue Committee’s 8-0 vote was a sign the controversial credit could survive this year, even as Governor Deval Patrick has proposed trimming it to help close the state’s budget gap for the next fiscal year.

Supporters of the film industry praised the vote, contending that when many businesses are shedding jobs, the tax incentive has helped to bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to Massachusetts.

“Defeating this bill is an important step in preserving the hard-won gains for the scores of Massachusetts businesses and the thousands of working men and women in the Commonwealth who have benefited from the film credit,’’ Joe Maiella, president of the Massachusetts Production Coalition, said in a statement. “The Commonwealth simply can’t afford to lose the film credit.’’

Critics have contended that the credit does not bring sufficient economic activity to justify its cost, which is about $100 million this fiscal year and is projected to grow to about $125 million next fiscal year.

In July, a Department of Revenue report found that Massachusetts reaps only 16 cents for every dollar the state spends on the incentive and that much of the benefit from the program flows to out-of-state companies and workers.

“All the evidence shows that this is a very costly tax credit with minimal economic impact, and the failure to limit it will require deeper cuts in other state programs, including aid to cities and towns,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded watchdog group. “The consequences for local schools and human services, which are already bearing the brunt of cuts, are very serious.’’

Senator Benjamin B. Downing, a Pittsfield Democrat and Senate chairman of the Revenue Committee, essentially abstained from yesterday’s vote. Downing said the bill deserved further consideration because, while the tax credit might be creating jobs, lawmakers must consider cutting it in a dire budget year.

“Everything has to be on the table in a crisis like this,’’ said Downing. “I don’t want to be making promises to an industry that we are not able to uphold as we go through the budget process and through this year.’’

Representative Jay R. Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat who is the committee’s House chairman, disagreed. He said that the credit has not only created jobs but sparked interest from developers who want to build studios in Massachusetts.

“We looked at it as something that promises tax returns over time and an investment worth making,’’ Kaufman said.

The bill would have drastically reduced the credit, in part by capping it at $7 million per film.

The governor, as part of his budget proposal for next year, has proposed a less drastic cut. His plan would cap the overall payout to $50 million per year for the next two years. His plan has not been acted on by lawmakers.

Representative Steven J. D’Amico, a Seekonk Democrat who sponsored the bill that was rejected by the committee, said he would continue pushing the issue.

“Every dollar we waste on a Hollywood dream is a dollar less we’ll have to provide education for our kids or fire safety or mental health support,’’ he said.

Legislation scaling back the state’s tax sweeteners for the film industry received a thumbs-down today from the Revenue Committee, seriously complicating the bill’s path to passage.

The Revenue Committee voted unanimously, with panel chair Jay Kaufman, and Reps. Peisch, Greene, Erlich, Driscoll, Cantwell, Arciero, and Barrows voting “ought not to pass.”

Senate chair Benjamin Downing voted to hold for further consideration. The bill scaling back the incentives to earlier levels was the subject of a crowded hearing in Gardner Auditorium last week, where critics argued it amounted to a giveaway for Hollywood, and unsound fiscal policy. Backers of the program said it provided sorely needed jobs in the state.

Joe Maiella, president of the Mass. Production Coalition, applauded the vote Thursday, saying in a statement, “The film industry is outperforming virtually every other sector of the Massachusetts economy during the worst economic recession in living memory. This kind of performance should be protected, not damaged.”

As we begin the FY 2011 budget debate at the Statehouse, it is imperative we identify our successful and growing economic engines that create and provide jobs in the commonwealth during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. We need to stoke these engines because their success means putting people to work and growing our lagging economy. People’s lives and livelihoods depend on this.

The film and television industry has become an incredibly successful economic engine, creating and growing jobs in the few short years since the film tax credit program was instituted by the Legislature. The film industry in Massachusetts is energetically outperforming the overall economy, creating jobs and growing. It has generated more than $1 billion in new direct spending in just its first four years!

The bipartisan film tax credit law was signed by Gov. Mitt Romney in 2005 and upgraded by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2007. As a result of this incentive, new local spending on film and television production has increased from barely $6 million in 2005 to nearly $400 million last year, according to the Department of Revenue.

DOR’s figures also indicate that during the first four years of the program, the actual cost to taxpayers has been roughly a dime for every new dollar of spending generated in the Massachusetts economy. That is a very good return on investment by anyone’s standards.

At a time when cities and towns in Massachusetts have seen local aid slashed to the bone, this economic growth and jobs creation has benefited locations throughout the state, including Andover, Burlington, Gloucester, Haverhill, Lawrence, Rockport and Salem, to cite a few.

We have both received many calls from our constituents recounting their stories of being out of work for years. Now, because of jobs in the film industry, they are once again able to work and bring home a paycheck to their families.

Unfortunately, there are those who either out of ignorance of the facts or because of some other agenda, want to end this successful program, shut down this humming economic engine and needlessly cause the thousands of people who work in this growing industry to lose their jobs.

One myth is that rich Hollywood actors are being subsidized. This is not true. Big stars don’t get any tax break under this law; in fact, they pay a lot of income tax to the commonwealth. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, for example, will pay more Massachusetts income taxes for his work on “Shutter Island” than most of us will pay in our entire working lifetimes!

In addition to this revenue, the ripple effect in our economy is estimated by a recent UMass study to be 95 cents in additional indirect spending for every dollar that film producers spend. This means that the total economic benefit to the state over the past four years is close to $2 billion. Restaurants, hotels, paint stores, lumber yards, coffee shops, fitness centers, even antique stores, have felt the benefit of the film tax credits.

The budget just released by the governor proposes to cap the film credit in FY 2011. Why cut one of the most successful economic incentive programs we have? People are working, new jobs are being created and existing industries are being bolstered by this program.

We must stand by this investment. People’s livelihoods depend on it. We are fighting hard to keep this engine running smoothly!

Reps. John Keenan, D-Salem, and Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, are House chairman and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development.

WCVB-TV 5 and the BostonChannel.com conducted an online survey between March 4th and 8th. Of the more than 5,000 respondents, 77% registered their support of the Massachusetts film tax credit. Here are the results they posted:

BOSTON — It’s Oscar weekend, and all eyes will be on the red carpet Sunday night. But here in Massachusetts, Hollywood East is in the spotlight.

In the last four years, 38 major motion pictures have been shot in the Bay State, including the Scorsese-DiCaprio “Shutter Island” that’s currently a box office hit. The main reason for the surge in production is a 25 percent film tax credit that went into effect in 2006.

Now, the Patrick administration is proposing a cap on that tax credit in order to balance the budget. Is that a good idea?

It’s true that the credit is a loser on the tax revenue side. But supporters say look at the big picture: it’s generated a billion dollars in economic activity and added jobs in a down economy. For that reason, we believe the credit deserves to stay uncapped.

But government’s support of this industry can only go so far. The old adage there’s no business like show business won’t hold up here unless private investors step up to build the studios and other infrastructure needed to make this a permanent industry.

Without this next move, this film fight might have an unsatisfying ending.

BOSTON — They came to the Statehouse not to shoot a movie, but to try to save tax credits in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Production Coalition (MPC) and hundreds of representatives from film-related businesses and organizations throughout the state — including an Essex selectman — were at the Statehouse yesterday, testifying to the Joint Committee on Revenue that, if a new House bill is passed, it would damage the “burgeoning Massachusetts film industry.”

The committee was hearing a bill sponsored by Rep. Steven D’Amico that would revert the film tax credit back to the original 2006 level, which had a $7 million cap per production and would exclude anyone whose salary tops $1 million from being eligible.

Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed to cap the tax credits at a much higher $50 million a year.

Among those testifying against the bill was Essex Selectman Ray Randall.

“It is likely, if we were to calculate it, that hundreds of thousands of dollars were brought into the town of Essex because of the spending on the movie ‘Grown Ups’ last summer,” Randall said. “When I walked into the Building Center in town one day and asked the clerk there, ‘Have the guys from the movie company come up here?’ he said, ‘They’re here every day, and they spend and they spend and they spend. It has made all the difference in our business, because it looked like it was going to be a very, very slow summer.’”

Beyond spending in local businesses, Randall noted, the producers paid Essex $150,000 to rent out Centennial Grove for the summer. The production also paid for a number of events that would have taken place at the Grove.

“So that $150,000 becomes $250,000,” Randall said. “In addition, they renovated the town’s cottage at Centennial Grove. If the town had had to do that, it would have cost us $80,000. Now you’re up to $325,000, directly to the town.

“Gentlemen, I am happy to tell you that $150,000 of that money went right into Essex’ Stabilization Fund, where it remains until we need it to meet some critical need,” he added.

Randall explained that Essex has avoided overrides of tax-limiting Proposition 21/2 for at least the last four years, and selectmen hope to be able to continue that trend next year.

Estimates from the town’s business community have said the film pumped some $1 million into Essex’ economy, alone.

“To avoid increasing taxes on the backs of our residents is increasingly important,” Randall said. “So this is a gift to Essex to have this movie done here. With this kind of return, we welcome the film industry back to Essex any time, with open arms.”

The MPC estimates that a rollback to 2006 levels would cut local production spending by 80 percent, sending that production spending, together with the jobs and new businesses it creates in Massachusetts, elsewhere.

“Since its inception, the film credit has worked magnificently, and in precisely the way in which it was intended,” said Joe Maiella, president of the MPC. “Tax credits are supposed to create economic activity, and this one has generated $1.07 billion in its first four years, according to the state Department of Revenue. That is an unparalleled success.”

However, D’Amico, a Seekonk Democrat, argues that the cash-strapped state shouldn’t be offering big tax giveaways to help subsidize the film industry.

An independent study by the University of Massachusetts Boston of the total additional impact on the economy that the film sector has created points out that every new dollar of direct production spending in the state generates an additional 95 cents in indirect and induced spending.

The same study also reported that employment in film and television production has increased in Massachusetts during a period when total state employment has been on the decline.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report by staff writer Jonathan L’Ecuyer, who can be reached at 978-283-7000, x3451 or jlecuyer@gloucestertimes.com.

by Jon Chesto
WickedLocal.com
March 4, 2010

Gov. Deval Patrick is not about to apologize for wanting to cap the state’s payout to the film industry at $50 million a year in tax credits – a move that would essentially more that halve what the state currently funds each year.

During a meeting last week with editors at The Patriot Ledger, Patrick told us the state is currently in a budget crisis mode – and expenses such as the film industry tax credits need to be curtailed until the economy rebounds.

“We are in an unusual place right now, and expecting everything to stay as it is while we are in the midst of a crisis strikes me as a little unrealistic,” Patrick said. “We’re not talking about eliminating the tax credit. It’s a temporary cap (on) a first-come, first-serve basis until we can afford an unlimited cap again.”

There’s a big problem with putting caps on these kinds of industry incentives: It opens up a whole new level of uncertainty that wasn’t there before. Filmmakers need to know they can take the state’s 25 percent tax credit on production expenses to the bank.

The governor’s plan could face a tough battle on Beacon Hill, where House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray have both voiced their strong support for this growing sector.

The film industry has apparently found its voice in Massachusetts: Supporters swarmed the State House on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to oppose a bill sponsored by Rep. Steve D’Amico that would revive a $7 million cap on the amount of tax credits that would be available for each production.

The industry is showing itself to be a bigger force than it was in 2005, when lawmakers first adopted the credits, and in 2007 when they stripped away that $7 million cap. That’s because the credits are working, and there are plenty of local companies that have been adding many year-round jobs during the worst depths of the recession.

There’s a valid debate to be made about whether movie companies – or any private employer – should benefit from public subsidies such as tax credits. But state officials should realize that a watered down tax credit, in this case, might be almost as bad as having none at all.

The uncertainty caused by Patrick’s proposal is sure to make it tough for film producers to pull together financing or make the case to their superiors and financiers that they should shoot a movie in Massachusetts. That uncertainty could prompt most of the filmmakers that could have come to Massachusetts for the tax credit to take their productions someplace else. That uncertainty would most likely leave us with the productions that would have been shot here anyway – with or without the tax credit. And that uncertainty would essentially defeat the entire purpose of funding the tax credit.

D’Amico once told me he hoped that the movie studios that are proposed for Massachusetts would never get built. D’Amico’s reasoning is that such large complexes would create a critical mass of permanent film industry workers in the state, making it politically impossible to take the tax credits away.

State lawmakers are finding out that the critical mass is already here. The leaders on Beacon Hill will now need to decide if they want to chase it away.

‘The Pacific’ producer Tom Hanks meets up with fellow history buff Gov. Deval Patrick at a screening of the first episode of the HBO miniseries at the John F. Kennedy Library.

Hollywood history buff Tom Hanks made a Splash at the JFK Library last night at a screening of his latest World War II epic titled “The Pacific.”

Tom, who produced HBO’s highly decorated miniseries “Band of Brothers” and starred in “Saving Private Ryan,” said he’s been fascinated with World War II since childhood.

“I became a guy in search of authenticity,” the actor/producer told the Track. “I wasn’t a fan of the stuff that was geared to us because we were stupid kids. I knew ‘McHale’s Navy’ was fake and so was ‘Hogan’s Heroes.’ ”

It was “The World at War,” a British documentary series narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier, that “changed my life,” said Hanks.

The Tinseltown teller of war stories said while watching the doc, history became more of a series of battles and map, it became human with the stories of the men who fought on the ground.

“These guys had a huge responsibility for men and they were 21 years old,” he said. “I always wondered what I would have done if I were them.”

World War II veteran George Hursey of Brockton tells his war stories to ‘The Pacific’ producer Tom Hanks at the John F. Kennedy Library.

“The Pacific,” a 10-part series that begins March 14, follows the real-life journey of three U.S. Marines who fought in the Pacific Theater.

The series - which took eight years to research and develop - is based on “Helmet for My Pillow” by Robert Leckie and “With the Old Breed” by Eugene Sledge.

Before the screening, Hanks met up with Gov. Deval Patrick after charming a legion of local World War II vets who were quite proud to be feted by such a superstar.

The gov told us he became fascinated with the war through the stories of his father-in-law, who lied about his age - and race - to enlist in the U.S. Navy.

“He didn’t want to be stuck in the galley,” he said. “He was a mine sweeper. It goes to show the patriotism of the times.”

The governor said he told Hanks that “The Pacific” is a “wonderful thing” he’s done “to honor the service and sacrafice of that generation.”

Joining Hanks at the event was his co-executive producer Gary Goetzman, “The Pacific” head writer Bruce McKenna (he swears he’s writing a romantic comedy next) and HBO miniseries sultan Kary Antholis.

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MARCH 3, 2010…… Critics of the state’s film tax credit program ripped the incentives Wednesday as poor fiscal policy when the state can least afford it, while industry proponents defended the $125 million program as a boon to the local creative economy.

At a crowded Gardner Auditorium hearing, both sides honed arguments that have swirled since the state passed the incentives in 2006, sharpened by the state’s economic pangs.

Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Mass. Taxpayers Foundation since 1992, said the state could effectively employ a blend of 2,000 police officers, firefighters and teachers for the cost of the program.

“In my 20 years at the foundation … I would say this is probably the most costly tax credit with the least economic benefit in my experience,” Widmer said.

Appearing on a separate panel, television producer Michael Maschio, who worked as a producer on the show “Spenser: For Hire,” said he was shooting an ABC pilot in Boston that, if picked up as a series, could bring $2 million per episode to the state.

“We wouldn’t be here with this show if it were not for the tax incentives,” Maschio told the Revenue Committee. “It will leave in a heartbeat if we don’t get this tax credit.”

The tax sweeteners, hailed as the keys to jumpstarting the state’s motion picture industry, offer sales and use tax exemptions, a transferrable 25 percent payroll credit, and a transferrable 25 percent credit on production expenses. The Department of Revenue expects to issue $125 million in credits next fiscal year. Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed capping the program at $50 million.

Under a bill (H 3854) filed by Rep. Steven D’Amico, a Seekonk Democrat, the state would revert to the 2006 incentive levels, imposing a $7 million limit on each production, reducing current credits to 20 percent, and excluding salaries above $1 million.

“We, in effect, issue Hollywood a blank check,” D’Amico told the panel. Noting cutbacks across state government, he said, “It’s time for us to impose that same level of budgetary discipline to film tax credits.”

The crowd of more than 300 in the capitol’s largest hearing venue was overwhelmingly in favor of the current tax credits, jeering some speakers who sided against the program and clapping for those in support.

Rick Cambria, a Rehoboth resident and former construction worker now in the film industry, won smiles and hoots of approval from the audience when he said D’Amico wanted to “take away my job. He might as well take my house away too.”

The state’s economic condition served both sides of the argument, with critics arguing that Beacon Hill ledgers, awash in red ink and facing an estimated $2.7 billion deficit next year, can ill-afford to dole out taxpayer dollars to an industry whose biggest earners reside out of state. Incentive backers said the prospect of netting jobs from both direct investment and ancillary spending, with unemployment hovering above 9 percent, should prove a crucial argument to lawmakers.

Citing Department of Revenue (DOR) estimates, the Mass. Film Office claims the film industry shot 13 major films here in 2008, generating $452 million in direct spending. Proponents of the current policy said local production spending would fall 80 percent under the rollback.

Senate President Therese Murray, still hoping to lure a $400 million studio investment to her Plymouth hometown, on Wednesday defended the tax credits, saying towns in the Cape Cod portion of her district had seen an economic uptick in art galleries, hardware stores, hotels and restaurants.

“If you’re going to have a consistent tax policy, you can’t keep changing it like this,” Murray told the News Service. “I think it brings in money to the Commonwealth beyond what DOR says.”

Charles Merzbacher, a filmmaker and Boston University film professor, said the tax policy had resulted in a “fundamental, positive transformation of the creative economy in the Commonwealth.”

Merzbacher said the program had allowed his BU students to build careers in Massachusetts.

“If the Legislature tinkers with the … credits, it will not simply send a chill through the industry, it will turn off the switch,” Merzbacher said.

Jennifer Weiner, a policy analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said the state faced aggressive competition from others looking to entice the same industry, some with more generous tax lures. She said policymakers should not regard the tax credits as onetime investments with long-term dividends.

“If this competitive environment persists, Massachusetts is likely to have to continue to offer [film tax] credits year after year,” Weiner said.

Photo by Angela Rowlings
‘The Fighter’ producer David Hoberman, head of Disney’s Mandeville Films, teaches a screen-writing workshop at Suffolk University.

Tinseltown titan David Hoberman, who has produced six flicks in Massachusetts over the past 10 years, said the Bay State was on the right road to growing its movie-making business. But now, he’s not so sure.

“You can’t opt in and then out of offering film tax credits,” said the producer of “The Fighter” and “The Proposal,” referring to Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan to cap the film tax credit at $50 million - down from around $125 million.

(There’s also a bill before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Revenue to cap film tax credits to a mere $7 million per production. Legislators will hear arguments on House Bill 3854 tomorrow morning.)

“If you’re going to stay in the business of making movies, then stay in the business,” said the man behind Disney’s Mandeville Films, who was at Suffolk University yesterday leading a screenwriting workshop for 50 undergrads.

“You need to develop infrastructure and talent. It takes time for people to feel secure enough to stay in Massachusetts if they know there’s going to be work,” he said.

Hoberman thinks Hollywood could deal with a lower film tax credit if producers didn’t have to import in so much talent from California as Hoberman did last year for “The Proposal” and “The Fighter.”

And speaking of the Mark Wahlberg made-in-Lowell biopic of boxing champ “Irish” Micky Ward, Hoberman said the flick is on the card for release in the fall.
“I do believe the film has Golden Globe and Academy Award potential for its performances, so that’s why we’re releasing it then,” he said. “You always see a big influx of films released then because of the awards.”

Hoberman said he fell in love with the story of Ward and his down-and-out half-brother/trainer Dickie Eklund, played by Christian Bale, when the original writers brought their documentary to Hollywood oh so long ago.

“It was a fascinating project from the start because it’s a true story and all the people are still alive - which is rare,” he said. “The sisters, the mom, everyone was there running around. Some didn’t understand what we were doing, some appreciated it, some hated it. But I think that at the end of the day, what was depicted was honest and it shows that we all set out to make a really great film.”

File Under: The (Film) Fighter.

LOS ANGELES - Martin Scorsese’s suspense thriller, “Shutter Island,” led the North American box office for a second consecutive weekend on Sunday, fending off strong debuts from the comedy “Cop Out” and horror remake “The Crazies.”

“Shutter Island” earned $22.2 million during the three days beginning Friday, taking its 10-day haul to $75.1 million, distributor Paramount Pictures said.

Leonardo DiCaprio, who has collaborated previously with Scorsese, stars in the picture as a federal marshal stranded at a prison hospital for the criminally insane off the coast of Massachusetts in 1954.

“Cop Out,” which stars Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan as a pair of New York City cops, opened at No. 2 with $18.6 million in ticket sales, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said.

Overture Films’ zombie conspiracy thriller, “The Crazies,” an update of a 1973 George Romero picture, followed at No. 3 with $16.5 million.

Both films had been targeting openings in the low- to mid-teen millions.

Paramount is a unit of Viacom Inc (VIAb.N). Warner Bros. is a unit of Time Warner Inc (TWX.N). Overture is a unit of Liberty Media Corp (LCAPA.O). (Editing by Paul Simao)

‘Transient’ jobs? Ask the folks who count on them

JOAN FITZGERALD and Peter Enrich’s Feb. 19 op-ed “State should yell ‘cut’ to film tax credit’’ offers the usual ivy-covered, statistically generated commentary to this debate. If they stepped out of their offices at Northeastern University and sauntered to where wage earners are struggling to meet mortgage payments, they might reassess the value of “transient’’ jobs.

In Dorchester and South Boston during the summer production season, on the set of the “The Zookeeper,’’ just one of the movies then in production, they would have seen many employees who were happy with their transient union jobs. At the Franklin Park Zoo set, where I worked, there were more than 100 employees for a number of months. They included carpenters, plasterers, painters, greenspersons, Teamsters, dressers, electricians, and laborers, many who had been laid off from other industries.

These jobs that some would call statistically insignificant kept families together and talent in Massachusetts. Perhaps from the heights of academia, these jobs might not matter. I can only assume that the tax revenues generated from hotels, food, tools, first aid, snacks, and general living expenses are equally unimportant to their statistics.

“Project-by-project’’ jobs are how my fellow movie workers and many in the other trades earn their livings.

Roger Danchik

Boston

Program is hardly ‘a losing bargain’

RE “STATE should yell ‘cut’ to film tax credit’’ by Joan Fitzgerald and Peter Enrich (Op-ed, Feb. 19): The writers miss the mark on several fronts. Oddly, they make no reference to UMass Boston’s independent 18-month study of the local economic impact of the local film industry since 2006. According to this study, nearly 7,000 jobs were created in 2008 alone. Even if you attribute only 75 percent of those jobs to the state’s tax credit, the cost per job is only $18,000. Fitzgerald and Enrich were correct about one thing: Film jobs pay an average annual salary of $68,000. Hardly a “losing bargain.’’

They are also mistaken when they define the success of this credit by revenue returned to the treasury. The purpose of this credit is to stimulate the state economy. According to the Revenue Department’s figures for the first four years of the program, it has done exactly that, to the tune of more than $1 billion. The cost to taxpayers? One dime for every new dollar generated.

Finally, the writers seem sure that this tax credit will cost more than $100 million a year. And yet, according to the Revenue Department, during the first four years of the program the actual cost of the credit has averaged $27 million per year.

These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

Joseph Maiella

President

Massachusetts Production Coalition
Boston

Shallow way to augment the state economy

RE “FILM tax credit boosts state, shouldn’t be subject to cap’’ (Editorial, Feb. 14): The film tax credit that the Globe endorsed is a shallow way to augment the state economy. It results in a quick fix that wears off once the film crew leaves. The only moviegoers who remember where the film was made are those who live there. Meanwhile, long-term, committed enterprises of the Commonwealth struggle under higher taxes and fees, and those drive business away or are a disincentive for new business to locate here. Are the temp jobs created by this gift to Hollywood worth more than the long-term employment fostered by a generally lower-cost business environment? Hardly.

Winn Willard

New Bedford

Click on any of the following links to get key information about the program’s cost, benefits, as well as commentary and reaction to our film production tax incentives which originally took effect in January of 2006:

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB. 25, 2010…..Fighting to defend industry tax breaks, a movie production advocate took on critics in the Legislature Thursday who are seeking to have the film tax credits reduced.

Joe Maiella, president of the Massachusetts Production Coalition, an unexpected attendee at a State House briefing held by critics of film industry tax breaks, took on the leading opponent, Rep. Steve D’Amico, challenging his facts and offering his version of “what’s true” about film production credits.

The sometimes-pointed back-and-forth was a precursor to a likely legislative battle over the credits, which supporters say have helped spur economic development in Massachusetts, create jobs and could lead to the establishment of a permanent film industry presence. The Legislature’s Revenue Committee is planning a hearing on a proposal by Gov. Deval Patrick to temporarily cap the film tax credits, and the Committee on Tourism, the Arts and Cultural Development is also planning an informational session on the topic.

Critics say the credits simply subsidize rich actors’ salaries, are sold off to companies in other industries and end up costing taxpayers. Lawmakers who oppose the credits have characterized supporters as kowtowing to the film industry, racing to the bottom against other states who offer tax credits, even as programs for the needy take deep cuts.

Maiella estimated that the film tax credits have amounted to about $25 million a year since their inception in 2007. D’Amico and other lawmakers at the morning briefing bristled at Maiella’s commentary, and they pointed out that many of the tax credit bills don’t come due until after production is complete, skewing the annual cost of the credits.

“For every dollar spent on film credits, it’s a dollar less to spend somewhere else,” D’Amico said. “We’re just throwing money away in the dark.”

The governor proposed in January limiting film tax credits to $50 million in each of the next two fiscal years, a plan administration budget officials said must be enacted by March to ensure savings in fiscal 2011.

Patrick budget officials also emphasized that the cap on film tax credits would be temporary so as to “not interfere with long-term plans to build film studios and will ultimately keep Massachusetts among the most competitive states for this significant industry.” The cap, according to administration budget documents, would save $75 million in expected tax credits in fiscal 2011, when the Department of Revenue expects $125 million in credits to be issued.

Maiella told the News Service that the governor’s cap proposal is a “fatal” idea because it would sow uncertainty in the industry.

One Cambridge-based company has credited the film tax credits with a major expansion and hiring amid the local and national recession.

“It has played an enormous role in our getting bigger,” said Tug Yourgrau, co-owner of Powderhouse Productions, a company in Davis Square that has expanded from 35 employees to 125 since the state uncapped film tax credits. “If the credit stays in place and is uncapped, we expect it to grow even larger.”

Yougrau said Massachusetts is uniquely positioned to lure film production because of the talent pool graduating from local colleges and strong union support for workers.

During Maiella’s and D’Amico’s back-and-forth debate, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford) and Denise Provost (D-Somerville), also critics of the tax credits, jumped in to defend their colleague, offering acerbic rebuttals and questioning why Maiella would take up so much of the briefing’s time.

“I’m kind of offended at your monopolizing so much time this week,” Provost said to Maiello, noting that a hearing on film tax credits is scheduled next week.

Under the tax credit program, passed in 2007, the state offers to pay 25 percent of the cost of movie production, so long as producers pay 50 percent of their costs or spend 50 percent of their shooting time in Massachusetts. The credit led to $113 million worth of credits being doled out for 2008 productions, according to the Department of Revenue.

-END-
2/25/2010

The MFO salutes SHUTTER ISLAND, the sixth Massachusetts-made movie since 2007 to win VARIETY’s box office title as the NUMBER ONE MOVIE IN THE US.

Buzz up!

Now if you ask us, Matt Damon’s let his Boston accent slide, but he better start brushing up on pahking the cah in Hahvahd Yahd. Because word outta Tinseltown is that the Cambridge homey will star as Robert F. Kennedy in a biopic about the slain senator.

Damon, who is also prepping to play Liberace’s gay lover opposite Michael Douglas as the flamboyant, candelabra-lovin’ piano man, has long been a fan of the Kennedy clan and their left-leaning politics. But the “Invictus” star has script approval before the RFK flick is greenlit, presumably to make sure he likes the way the character comes off.

The screenplay is being written by “Eastern Promises” scribe Steven Knight and is based on the Evan Thomas biography “His Life.” Gary Ross, who made a movie about another historic figure - Seabiscuit - is directing.

The film will trace RFK’s rise from the shadow of his older bro, President John F. Kennedy, his presidential run and his assassination in 1968.

No word on how RFK’s widow, Ethel, and her kids feel about the latest Bobby flick. However, we can tell you that the clan has not been too thrilled about previous projects based on their family history. Do stay tuned . . . .

By PETER CARANICAS
VARIETY
February 23, 2010

‘Shutter Island’ production designer Dante Ferretti and director Martin Scorsese shot most of the pic’s interiors in an abandoned warehouse in Massachusetts.

TONGUES WAGGED last August when Paramount said it had made the business decision to postpone the release of “Shutter Island” from October to February.

The delay removed the film from this year’s awards contenders and risked alienating helmer Martin Scorsese and fans whose appetite had been whetted by trailers for the thriller. But it doesn’t seem to have damaged the pic’s box office haul, which came in at just over $40 million domestic on its opening weekend — thanks in part to a dark puzzle of a story underpinned by the unsettling environment created by production designer Dante Ferretti.

“Shutter Island” is Ferretti’s seventh film with Scorsese; others include “Kundun” and “Gangs of New York” and “Aviator.” “We’re on the same wavelength,” Ferretti says. “Martin speaks a lot at the beginning. I listen. Then I make my suggestions, too.”

The Dennis Lehane novel on which “Shutter Island” is based takes place in Massachusetts, and the film was shot almost entirely in the Bay State. “We looked at Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island — searching for incentives so we would get a bang for the buck,” says location manager Robin Citrin. “Massachusetts had good ones, plus a lot of abandoned mental hospitals, some of them with incredible architecture.”

Scorsese and Ferretti picked a derelict facility in the town of Medfield and “surrounded it with a high wall to make it look like a prison, or like an institution for the criminally insane,” says Ferretti. (The film is set in 1954.) “We also found an old warehouse where we shot most of the film’s interiors. We used it like a studio and built about 70% of the film’s interiors from scratch inside of it.”

Ferretti worked closely with vfx supervisor Rob Legato to create the lighthouse on Shutter Island, site of the film’s denouement. “We built just 20 feet of its exterior,” says Ferretti. “The rest, up to the top, was CGI. I did the drawings and built a small model so we would have a clear idea of what to do.”

Set decorator Francesca Lo Schiavo, Ferretti’s collaborator and wife of 25 years, dressed all the sets to give them spooky yet accurate period details. During jobs, the duo try to not talk shop in the evenings. “We have a very good meal instead,” says Ferretti, “and talk about the vacation we’ll take when we finish the movie.”

But, after a pause, he betrays the workaholic within: “What I do is a great pleasure. When they ask me where I’m going on vacation, I say, ‘I’ll go on vacation when I start to work.’”

Ferretti is now taking his eighth “vacation” with Scorsese, filming “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” with exteriors in Paris and interiors in London.

WHITNEY E. ADAIR
Drawing financial support from the university and inspiration from the colorful Boston film community, film students find ample opportunites to pursue creative projects from within the department of Visual and Environmental Studies.

In the summer of 2009, film student Alexandra E. Zimbler ’10 visited her grandmother in Saint-Malo, Brittany, to interview her for her documentary thesis film in Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). She had planned to make a film about her grandmother’s life in a nursing home, but found her main character in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. “She didn’t have her memory any more,” Zimbler said. “I went to her old apartment, looking for photographs, anything that would give me clues about her life and her past. I found some original letters that she had written to my grandfather in 1951 and 1952. That was the key.”

These discoveries inspired Zimbler to intercut her documentary project with fiction segments based on her grandmother’s correspondence. Six months later, after arranging to take her fall exams in absentia, Zimbler flew to Paris with the director of photography for her project, Alexander E. Berman ‘10. The two held auditions for the fiction scenes six hours after arriving in Paris, and began shooting the next day.

From within the Film track in VES, Zimbler benefits from a department steeped in tradition and generous with its grants. While not as career-oriented as other school’s programs, the track offers students both conceptual grounding and creative experience in an economy increasingly hostile to independent filmmakers.

CONCEPTS VS. CAREERS

Filmmaking can be one of the more precarious fields for undergraduates to enter immediately after graduating. Would-be documentarians face difficulty getting funding outside Harvard, and those looking for work on fiction films encounter their own set of obstacles. “You can’t get a job on a set unless you’ve had job on a set,” remarked Robb Moss, a lecturer on nonfiction filmmaking in the VES department and the director of documentaries “Secrecy” and “The Same River Twice.”

To avoid financial pitfalls, Zimbler hopes to apply for fellowships and grants from Harvard that will allow her to pursue a documentary about children and sports after graduation. “I’ve been thinking about going to China, to [the] Ukraine, to different places in Russia. I seem,” she said with a smile, “to have this fever about filming abroad.” Between the obvious costs of travel and permits, and Zimbler’s affinity for more expensive recording material—her thesis, “Dear George” was shot on high-definition digital video and Super 16—she’ll need those grants.

To complicate matters, the VES film program is not structured to channel students directly into the industry. Because the Film/Video field teaches film as a concentration within the liberal arts, the methodology of the Harvard film program often varies wildly from how film is taught in undergraduate film schools such as the ones at New York University, the University of Southern California and the University of Califonia in Los Angeles.

“In film schools, there is a notion that they’re trying to get you jobs, and that this is an experience that leads you into the industry,” Moss said. “Courses are broken down into the industrial mode: there are courses on cinematography, or scriptwriting, or producing, or directing. We don’t do that. We are interested in film as a way to know the world, as any other discipline here would.”

Berman would agree. “You don’t necessarily get the screenwriting and dramaturgical education that you would in a film school,” he said. But Harvard’s methodology has its own advantages. “You don’t get dogma or pressure to conform to a certain dramatic structure,” he added. This creative license is one of the chief benefits of learning filmmaking at Harvard.

In addition to the strong conceptual education that students receive, Harvard’s filmmaking program is exceptional in its age and establishment. The Film track of VES was founded early, in 1969. Despite its small size, it boasts several notable graduates, including Mira Nair ’79 (“The Namesake”) and Darren S. Aronofsky ’91 (“The Wrestler”).

This established foundation has also supported the birth of new film programs at Harvard University. In 2005 the VES department diversified their programs with a new Film Studies track, which focuses on analysis and theory rather than production, and created a PhD program in Film and Visual Studies this past fall. This chain of development is a rather unusual one. At other universities, film studies departments long predated filmmaking courses.

ON LOCATION

The university’s location is another draw for filmmakers. Harvard is a well-situated center for nonfiction film production, as is the Boston area in general. Oliver A. Horowitz ’08, a VES teaching fellow, pointed out this advantage. “Not to say that Boston is the epicenter, but Boston is a huge, huge bastion of nonfiction film,” he said.

Many of the big names in documentary—including Moss, Ross McElwee, and Aflred Guzzetti—teach in the Harvard VES program. Beyond Harvard’s campus, Boston is also home to celebrated documentary filmmakers like Frederick Wiseman (“Domestic Violence”)—“kind of the godfather of cinéma vérité,” in the words of Horovitz—and Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”), compared by critic Roger Ebert to Alfred Hitchcock and Federico Fellini. The high concentration of filmmakers in the area is due in part to the number of colleges and universities, many with strong film programs, located in the Boston area.

This film presence can offer a myriad of options to VES graduates like Horovitz who decide to remain in the area. Upon graduating, Horovitz became the first Teaching Fellow of VES 50: Fundamentals of Filmmaking. But due to the Massachusetts Film Tax Credit luring major studios to shoot in Boston, he also has had the opportunity to work on commercial film. “It’s great,” said Horowitz. “I’ve TA-ed here, and on Fridays I’ll PA [work as a Production Assistant] on a hundred-million-dollar movie.”

Damien S. Chazelle ’08, a VES graduate, took advantage of what Boston had to offer in a different way. He worked the energy of the Boston jazz scene and cityscape into a full-length feature film. His film, “Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench,” began as his senior thesis and showed at New York City’s celebrated Tribeca Film Festival in 2009.

Chazelle could not have realized his project without continuing support from the Harvard community. A fellow VES concentrator, Jasmine A. McGlade ’07 produced “Guy and Madeline,” while his former roommate Justin G. Hurwitz ‘08 composed the score. Even now in Los Angeles, Chazelle is living with other students from Harvard. “There’s still a kind of community that continues after gradu “Because at the end of the day, that’s what it’s all about: finding collaborators whom you trust and who are going to make you a better filmmaker.”

SCREENED FROM THE OUTSIDE

While nurturing students’ personal development, the Harvard community can also isolate them from the outside world. The “Harvard Bubble” is a commonly acknowledged problem amongst students. Although Boston is a center for nonfiction film, many students feel they have not experienced it as such. “Boston’s a really cool film community, and I wish students took more advantage of it,” said John P. Harrison III ’09. “It’s kind of hard to escape the Harvard campus.” Eliora M. Noetzel ’10 has had exactly that difficulty. “I’ve not been to many film festivals, because getting off campus is not something I do often,” she said. “We’re lucky to have the HFA [Harvard Film Archive] here, and we have a lot of people that come here specifically to present work, so we don’t really have to leave.”

In some ways, this shelter effect can be beneficial; as students, Harvard filmmakers do not have to face the harsh realities of the suffering film industry. As a newcomer, McGlade has already encountered difficulties in finding a distributor for “Guy and Madeline.” “This year, last year, financially everyone’s taken a hit, and distributors aren’t taking the same risks that they used to,” said McGlade. “It’s been a really tough year for independent film.”

Film industry professionals feel similarly. Patrick Jerome, Director of the Boston International Film Festival, reported that many film festivals—like CineVegas and the Hollywood Black Film Festival—have been cancelled this year. “Film festivals depend on a good economy to survive,” Jerome said.

In response to the economic downturn, the number of films produced a year has been dropping. In 2008, 520 films were produced by the major studios. The projection for 2010 is between 300 and 400. From the point of view of a distributor, the bar has been raised. “You’re making fewer films, and being more careful about the ones you’re choosing, so it’s harder to get funding,” McGlade said. “People aren’t getting the same amount of money for deals.”

Robin Dawson, who was Massachusetts State Film Commissioner for 10 years and is now the Executive Director of the Boston Film Festival, has a more optimistic view for the future of independent film. “I think the independent industry will start to maybe benefit from the studios putting out less films a year,” she said. “I anticipate that more indies will be picked up and distributed by the studios.”

REELING IN FILMS

Boston itself, however, has been somewhat sheltered from this effect due to the Film Tax Credit, which was instated in 2006. Since its implementation, there has been a steady increase in the number of films produced in Boston. “Boston, as a result of a tax break for films, is kind of crazy. It’s become this huge haven for feature films,” said Horovitz. Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” and “Shutter Island” are two such films shot in Boston since the tax credit.

From Horovitz’s perspective as a Production Assistant working on high-budget fiction filming in the area, shooting has noticeably taken off in the last year or two—but not only due to tax credits. “People are realizing it’s much easier to shoot in Boston than in New York,” he said. “In New York, there’s so many permits you have to get, and it’s so bureaucratic.”

Moreover, productions are ironically smoother in Boston because Bostonians are so unused to them. “In places like the Village, people are so overloaded by film shooting there, they just hate it,” Horovitz said. “Boston [is the] opposite. People are so excited to have films here, they just love it. Last year, people were like, ‘Oh, my God, Mel Gibson’s coming here, that’s awesome!’ The people are great.” It seems that film in Boston—and at Harvard—will continue to thrive.

—Staff writer Abigail B. Lind can be reached at alind@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Rebecca A. Schuetz can be reached at schuetz@fas.harvard.edu.