I sometimes wonder how many people in Hollywood (or anywhere, for that matter) have actually heard the term “Dustbuster” before. I certainly hadn’t, at least not until I started working as a post-production assistant. Unless you really studied these things in college, it’s only once you start to work for (or with) a production company do you truly understand just how many different types of film and television production jobs there really are.

“Dustbuster” was the loose name given to the job of digital colorist assist-assist, though the job title was not exactly accurate (in fact, it always seemed an afterthought, something to give us some sort of hierarchy within the company). I mean, we were working a film post-production job, in an assistant capacity, beneath the Colorist Assists, so I suppose you could give us that particularly cumbersome label. However, to save time and spare confusion, I and my fellow workers were called dustbusters, as we were literally responsible for removing dust (as well as scratches, and blotches) from every single frame of every single film the company took on. The colorists needed an impeccably pristine “canvas” with which to do their work, and that’s where we came in.

The process for cleaning film is simple enough to describe on the surface: they would scan the film digitally, and would then send the files to the main computers in our workspace. The film was then broken up into sections, with each section typically assigned to one of the nine or so workstations. Each workstation was loaded with the company’s proprietary software program, which would run the film frame by frame, shot by shot, and scene by scene. The dustbusters would then literally clean the film, by digitally removing every scratch or hair or discoloration. We did this by surrounding the offending mark with a box, which would then scan the next frame for a similar image to render. If there was little movement, the job was simple; if there was a lot of movement, we then had to tweak the box to get it as close as possible to blemish-free.

If this sounds mundane, it’s because it was. An eight hour shift, locked in a small, dark, windowless room, working at a cubicle, and staring at the same couple of thousand frames of film all day isn’t exactly how I would describe the fun side of Hollywood. But more than that, it served to illustrate just how many production jobs there truly are, and how varied they can be. Now, whenever I look at a film’s budget, I can’t help but be impressed by the number of people working behind the scenes, on the smallest details, people whose names will never appear in the credits; I think of the countless production companies, each specializing in an aspect of the filmmaking process. And I marvel at just how big and yet small this town can feel.

I’ve been hearing tidbits for months now, from various friends and family in the northeast, about a film studio or two popping up in that area.  The talk centers around the number and variety of film and television production jobs that will be available, in complexes that are set to rival those found anywhere in the country (even Los Angeles).  As time went on, the chatter grew, and so I decided to look into the claims; and soon, two words stood out above the others, both in terms of scope and ambition: Hollywood East.

That’s right, film and television production is coming to Massachusetts in a way never-before seen on the east coast.  As of now, there are two distinct groups emerging as favorites to build studios within the state.  The first, Plymouth Rock Studios, is a film and television digital complex set to open in Plymouth, MA; the second is Los Angeles-based International Studio Group, which intends to build eleven sound stages and related office space in SouthField, MA.  Both of these groups intend to work together, not in competition, to ensure that the larger goal of creating a viable studio system in the state is reached.

These are no fly-by-night endeavors, the kind of operations that build themselves up on promises but fail to deliver for whatever reason (anything from a lack of funding, to a lack of approval by the local legislature).  No, these are legitimate collections of Hollywood producers and executives, including a former producer who once ran Paramount, Walt Disney and Touchstone studios.  And yet despite coming from outside the state, these men and women are showing a keen understanding of how to work with local governments and business leaders, to not only gain approval for the land they need, but also to clearly and concisely lay out their plan for what will be an ambitious business model (one that could conceivably bring 7,000 jobs to their respective regions).  There’s also a youth-oriented feeling among many of the proposals for the studio development, with the goal of retaining a creative and young workforce who would otherwise be lured to California or New York in their pursuit of filmmaking opportunities.

And yet this kind of ambition should come as no surprise to anyone who’s followed the film tax credit battles that have been waged these past few years between states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Michigan.  Each one is looking to make the claim of being THE BEST home for filmmaking outside of Hollywood, and are competing to be just that.  Such grand-scale plans are exactly what Massachusetts has been searching for ever since the 25% film tax credit that was created in 2006 (and subsequently expanded in July 2007).  There have even been public hearings on proposed legislation to give an equally-high tax credit on studio construction costs as well.  Already the state has seen a dramatic increase in production in the Commonwealth, and if the first step of their intent was to attract the filmmakers, then the next logical step seems to be keeping them there.  Hence the idea behind Hollywood East.

Next up, now that we know who the players are, we’ll take a look at what they’re offering, everything from specific jobs in film and television, to increases in tourism…

I’ll admit it: checking the box office numbers of “The Dark Knight” has become a habit with me.  I keep going to www.boxofficemojo.com, and staring at the total domestic take (over $363 million in just 15 days); I read various articles wondering if the film is poised to make a run at Titanic’s epic $600 million domestic haul.  And I find myself theorizing exactly why this film is generating as much noise as it is.  The answer, I believe, lies beyond mere filmmaking.  What we’re seeing is truly a small phenomenon – a perfect storm of a film.  This is what happens when an excellent sequel (even better than its predecessor), rave critical reviews, a magnetic performance by a recently-deceased actor, and incessant word of mouth come together.

It starts, of course, with the movie itself: wonderfully written and directed, with a haunting yet moving score to accompany the great action and suspense.  Even when the first feedback was trickling in from sources close to the production, before any trailer was complete, there were raves about the dark story and the actors bringing it to life (everyone from Christian Bale, to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart).  And the early reviews were dead on:  every major actor in this picture is worthy of recognition.  They add complexity to the story, as well as to their characters’ development within that framework.  I feel I can watch this film again and again, if only to see each actor so skillfully inhabit their role, wondering in the back of my mind what’s not being said – the stories behind the stories.  Take the Joker, for instance, who proclaims himself an agent of chaos, and yet so meticulously plans his schemes he’s almost like a deranged mathematician.  Ledger plays both sides so well, and so believably, that one can’t help but sit back and marvel at the odd duality of this character, the way he can be almost two distinct psychotics in one.

People like to point to the death of Ledger as the main reason to the film’s success, but that is merely simplifying the issue.  Rather, his passing is one of the cogs in a greater machine.  Critics were already raving about his performance prior to his death; they will talk about it for months to come.  And yes, there are some out there who will see the film only to watch the last performance of a young actor.  But there are so many more who will be pulled in for the other reasons mentioned above. 

Look at the overwhelmingly positive collection of reviews.  It is so rare to see critics getting behind a summer comic book movie, usually because they are so lean on story or character development.  Not so in this case: out of 247 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, only 14 are negative.  Read those reviews, and they’re less analytical assessments of the film, and more excited examinations of why the film is so good. 

The best part is, the film actually manages to live up to the intense hype.  What you read in the reviews is the same thing you hear from the average filmgoer; you can feel a breathless kind of enjoyment, can see a “there are so many reasons this film was good I can’t even pick one” gleam in the eye. 

Which, in the end, might be the best explanation for why this film continues to do so well: seeing it once (or twice) is simply not enough.

**Note:  I have to say, I’ll be amazed if the film passes “Titanic” for the domestic box office record. Think about it this way: let’s say at best that “The Dark Knight” grosses approximately $18 million tomorrow and another $12 million on Sunday (at BEST!!!)…  that would put the total box office at just under the $400 million mark.  That would mean that the film would have to earn another $200 million just to tie “Titanic”’s record.  To put it in perspective, that’s almost the entire domestic box office take of ‘Batman Begins’!  It’s a staggering figure when you think of it on those terms.

The one silver lining in all of this is that ‘The Dark Knight’ is on pace to reach the $400 million mark within 20 days (maybe 25)– obliterating the old record of 43 days set by ‘Shrek 2′.