I’ve seen more and more articles recently decrying “runaway film production” – film and TV shows leaving our city and our state, and heading toward more tax-friendly environs.  I have heard for years about Canada, for instance, offering a way out to productions seeking to trim costs… their streets and their locations serve well as a substitute for American locales, but at lower prices (for both location use as well as crews).  But I didn’t know why, in the past year, the issue had ballooned.  So I decided to do some research, to discover what moves the “competition” had made, and what (if anything) our state had done in the past few years to halt this trend.

One article I found dated back to November of 2006.  It talked about the need to retain film production in Los Angeles, and was written by our own mayor, Antonio R. Villaraigosa.  He was writing the piece in response to an editorial in the LA Times, which criticized closing the 105 in order to film a scene for “Live Free or Die Hard”; he stated in simple yet concise tones the need for our legislators to do all they can to keep these productions from heading elsewhere.  He writes: “Today, only 11% of all feature films are being made in California, and we cannot afford to cede this integral industry to other cities, especially as competition grows more fierce.”  He then goes on to cite that competition, pointing out that “14 states [have] passed new tax incentives or improved existing incentives for film productions,” and the “troubling, long-term implications to that trend.”  Finally, he rounds out his opinion piece by mentioning his support AB 777, a bill which could provide tax incentives for productions to stay in California. 

Sounds good to me.  So, this being a year-and-a-half ago, I did some research to find out what happened to “Assembly Bill 777 – Motion Picture Production Tax Incentives for California”.  While some criticism was levied against it with respect to its effectiveness, or the cost to California taxpayers, overall the bill seemed to be a good start.  The only problem is, this bill seems to have disappeared.  The most recent reference I could find to AB 777 was dated February of 2007, and talked about cruelty to elephants.  Obviously, the bill had had a makeover.

Searching for similar bills led me to an article from June of 2007.  One line in particular caught my eye, because of its familiarity:  “We will not sit idly by and watch this homegrown industry disappear because other states are being more aggressive.” This from Majority Leader Karen Bass, of Los Angeles.  Very similar to Villaraigosa’s stance, and yet again, I can find no follow-up article discussing a bill being passed.  It seems this push, too, had stalled.

I did, however, find an article from April of this year, which discusses the New York State legislature’s plan to triple their film and TV tax credits for productions within its borders.  The article goes on to say how “New York City [in particular] also offers a 5% credit, so city shoots can reap a total of 35%.”  And what was the reasoning for these increased credits?  Was the legislature responding to some move made by California’s lawmakers, a sort of tit-for-tat?  Was it trying to break the west coast’s hold on film and TV production?  No, these incentives were done “in a bid to regain an edge over [New York’s] credit-happy neighbors Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.”  That’s right – not to counter any moves that California or Hollywood had made, but to beat the moves made by other states.

Which finally led me to this article, from May 2008, in which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for legislative action, saying “California must increase tax incentives to movie and television studios as a way to keep them from moving their productions out of state.”  These comments came days after ABC Studios said it was moving production of ”Ugly Betty” from Los Angeles to New York – meaning the siphoning has extended to include not just individual shoots, but entire productions as well.  The article adds that Schwarzenegger has been pushing for such legislation for four years, but so far has found no success.

That is our loss – and this loss extends beyond the revenue generated by the productions themselves.  It seems simple to say, but keeping these shoots in Los Angeles and California in general can only have a positive impact, especially on tourism.  Because what else are we primarily known for, if not being the entertainment capital of the world?  Take away our film and TV shoots, and you take a major part of our identity.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Too often, it seems, one hears about the vast differences between the coasts and the central states… “flyover states” they’re called, as though only to be appreciated (if at all) while passing beneath us.  There’s always talk of Hollywood executives being out of touch with these average television-watchers, of their belief that those people tend to embrace simpler, cruder entertainment.  It’s a constant cycle – Hollywood dumbs down television, thinking the average person need only a few explosions and some nudity to be entertained, and the “common man” strikes back that the people in Hollywood can’t make a decent show to save their lives.

To be honest, television is often out of touch.  It does tend to pander to its audience.  It gives us shows like “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” and “The Moment of Truth”.  This is what is called mindless entertainment: easy to ingest, without needing too much thought to do so.  And these are only two examples that typify the “make it cheap, make it simple, and make plenty of it” mentality, the idea that if this is what the people want, then we’re going to give it to them. 

The thing is, this is not what the audience really wants – not exclusively.  Sure, reality programming can be a nice break, a fun form of escapism.  But can you imagine if that was all television had to offer?  If every channel had some form of Lindsay Lohan’s mother staring back at you?  What a truly horrifying thought.  And yet, given the chance, many TV executives would do just that.  Make it cheap, and make it simple, right?  But the only problem is, audiences aren’t simple.  The emergence of reality shows in the past decade or so does not mean that they have a limited threshold of taste.  If anything, it means they are simply waiting to be challenged more often.

Take a look at any successful TV show, and the reason for its success can be traced to its acceptance by a vast audience – not just those on the east or west coasts (or the middle states), but all across the country.  As such, there can be no such thing as a “flyover state”, because no viewer should be ignored, or pandered to.  People in Kansas or Oklahoma are the heart and soul of any audience (just like those in California or New York), and they have just as much need for good entertainment as anyone.  A truly successful television show has at its heart creators that understand this need, and shape themselves to reach as wide an audience as possible.  Take “Lost”, for example, with its blend of action and special effects, thought-provoking writing, and impeccable acting.  The show is many things to many people, and is able to maintain this balance while never compromising its integrity.  It’s as if the creators started out by looking at their audience and at themselves, saying “we can give people intelligent characters and situations – we can stimulate their hearts and their minds and still get their pulses racing”.  They trusted their audience from day one; they didn’t dumb down their work, or spoon-feed it to their viewers.  In turn, their audience trusted them, and are consistently rewarded because of it.

This is not meant to be a discussion on the merits of reality versus scripted television; as mentioned above, both have something unique to offer.  But it would be nice, at the end of the day, to see a greater number of TV shows embrace the idea that their audience is more clever than they’ve been given credit for.  It would be nice if television executives sought out that balance – if they pushed themselves to spread their visions to as many people as possible without compromising those visions. 

Basically, it would be nice if they just shelved “A Shot at Love 3” and gave us something more…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Go to YouTube and type in “Hilary Clinton”, and you get something along the lines of 96,000 videos; type in “Barack Obama”, and you get approximately 116,000.  Or try Google, where typing the name “John McCain” elicits about 38,000,000 hits.  Welcome to politics in the media age, where everything you need to know is at your fingertips – and even more that you don’t.

We live in a time where those running for the highest office in the country are under a greater, more intense form of scrutiny than ever before.  Each one of the videos or web pages mentioned above give us intimate access to the candidates, allowing us the freedom to leisurely examine their positions, or their public speaking methods, even their clothing or hairstyles.  It seems like we can never get enough… we gorge ourselves on every tidbit we can find, even though there is more information about these people than we could ever hope to read, hear, or see.

As humans, we’ve always had an insatiable need for knowledge; what we’re witnessing now, though, is something else.  It’s as if, by having so much, we’ve become conditioned to expect even more.  It’s not enough to be able to watch a video of Obama anytime we want… now, we can scrutinize his every word, to look for meaning both obvious and covert.  We can watch him frame by frame, in high definition television, looking for a blink or a facial tic that we can use to add meaning to his words – or to imply intent that isn’t really there.  It’s a form of perception-shaping, each according to his own needs or desires.  And then, when we’re done, we can log in to our favorite sites and post our newfound beliefs (or theories) for the whole world to read.

What does this mean to the election process?  One need only to look at Franklin Roosevelt for one answer.  Roosevelt contracted what was believed to be polio in 1921, resulting in his paralysis from the waist down.  Yet he was able to not only continue in public office, but to go on to win the presidency three times.  And throughout all of this, he convinced the American public that he was, if not exactly healthy, then at least getting better.  He did so by manipulating the media into seeing what he wanted it to see: he taught himself to walk using iron braces and a cane to appear vital; he used an extra-sturdy podium with which he could support himself for speeches in public; and he rarely allowed himself to be photographed in his wheelchair (which he used only in private).  He lied about the extent of his illness because he knew that it could not hinder him in serving the people.

Today, however, the line between mainstream media and independent ‘journalist’ has become severely blurred.  If Roosevelt were to try and manipulate the media now, he would in fact be manipulating us, the public at large.  And he would be vilified for it, for lying about something of such significance.  Today, the health of the most powerful man in the world is information that belongs to all of us.  The president cannot have a hangnail removed without the world knowing in advance… he gets a flu, and instantly the story flies around the world as markets tremble in anticipation.  No, chances are that Roosevelt wouldn’t even be nominated today – a candidate felled by a paralyzing illness might be considered a poor choice for whichever party he chose to represent.  Never mind qualifications… in the media age, it’s as much about how you look during your speech as it is what you say.

Which brings us back to McCain, who is questioned because people say he’s too old; or Obama, who comes across to some as a bit of an elitist; or Clinton, who at times is either too severe or too shrill or too mushy.  Thanks to an over-abundance of media outlets and devices, we have resorted to judging our candidates based on qualifications that, at times, have almost nothing to do with the office of the President and more to do with a popularity contest – we can watch a speech on You Tube, read the comments below, and get swept up in the discussions of everyday people debating the most mundane points.  It’s unnerving, to say the least.  And it’s also unnecessary.

Bring on the general election…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Call it a renaissance if you want.  A rebirth of a specific aspect of American cinema: the franchise.  Whatever label you wish to give it, we are witnessing a revival of film series that were once thought dead – moribund franchises, that were had long ago outlived their usefulness.  “Batman”; “Superman”; “Rocky”; “James Bond”; even “Die Hard”.  It doesn’t take a film expert to see that these movies had descended into self-parodying shells of their former selves (admittedly, the first three more so than the latter two, but still, they were on their way).  Banking on brand awareness, producers were down to giving us stories that were basically dressed up recycling, always reliving the same plots but never pushing new bounds.  Brand awareness can only do so much, before you find yourself stuck with the conventional missteps of filmmakers eager to use a franchise for what it can offer, rather than what they can do for it.  “Batman & Robin” was a prime example, as was “Rocky V”.  (Of course, there are those who feel both films are good, fun storytelling, and wouldn’t change a thing.. this is not meant for them).

It now appears that it can sometimes take a decade of futility, and an utter lack of interest from the audience, before you can get a new lease on franchise life.  It takes time before you can get a Christopher Nolan to the table, or a Martin Campbell – men who re-create a series based on quality, not merely the recognition of the name.  All these years we’ve waited, and we finally have filmmakers who can take all the memorable images and ideas from our iconic heroes and make them real again – and can also make them relevant in a more modern world.  Whether it be Batman’s beginning, or James Bond’s first kill, we’re treated to an analysis of what makes these men great – faults and all.  In fact, it’s a testament to these filmmakers that they’re able to recognize the greatness in our most flawed characters – and it marks the beginning of an era in which our creations truly reflect the best and worst of us all.  That is what these writers and directors have done in re-imagining classic franchises, and as fans of cinema we should be grateful.

As a final note, one can’t mention “Rocky V” without also discussing the fabulous work that Sylvester Stallone did in “Rocky Balboa”, the 6^th Rocky film – and perhaps the best since the very first.  More so than any of the other films mentioned above (even more than Bond’s “Casino Royale”) this newest Rocky film is remarkable because it not only reinvigorated a franchise that had become a joke (“What’s the latest movie up to, “Rocky 12”?), but it did so using the some of the same actors, in very much the same setting.  What Stallone did was, at its core, very simple: he wrote an incredibly truthful, self-assessing cinematic gem, that never tried to be more than it was.  And the result was dialogue so honest, that even as we’re watching Rocky say the lines, we’re also seeing Stallone say them himself.  Stallone should be credited with having the depth and technique to pull this off, and the self-awareness to make this one of Rocky’s best moments.

I for one am off to watch the new “Rambo”.  After that, I will eagerly await the next Batman and James Bond films, knowing they’re in good hands… for now.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

We’re often asked how users of Media Match can maximise the value of their membership to the site – leading ultimately to that sought-after job.

Here are our top 10 tips for getting the most out of Media Match:

Job Types

Media Match allows you to select up to 4 distinct job type categories on your profile. The selections you make here determine which job alerts we email to you, and how employers find you when they search the Media Match freelancer database*. To maximise your exposure, make sure you have chosen 4 appropriate job types.

‘Work In‘

Just like the ‘jobtype’ tick boxes – selecting the state(s) you’re available to work in determines the email alerts you get, and the employer searches* you appear in. Be realistic about what you select. Are you really prepared to move to California from New York? Update your ‘work in’ here.

About Me

The ‘About Me‘ section on your Media Match profile is your chance to sell yourself. The first 100 words of the ‘About Me’ appears next to your name in the search results* presented to employers who directly search our database. Make sure you have something attention-grabbing in there to entice employers to look at your full profile.

If you have elected to allow your profile to be found by major internet search engines* (like Google, MSN and Yahoo – see below), then the ‘About Me’ section is what appears under the link to your resume in their search results.

Upload a Picture

A picture of yourself, your work, a logo or a still can help make your profile memorable. In addition to making your profile different from the rest of the bunch, it also allows you to express your personality and give you an online identity which is useful not only in sticking in people’s mind, but when engaging with the Media Match community though the forum, or contacting other freelancers. It only takes a few quick clicks!

Upload your professional resume

Have you got a Word or pdf version of your full professional resume? Upload it to your Media Match profile (‘Upload Word’ on the Profile submenu). Many employers like to see a standard resume attached to Media Match multimedia profiles

Instant Update

Many employers search our freelancer database directly to find the people who have the skills they need, without advertising on the jobs board. The search results* are displayed in order of most recently updates resumes first. To make sure you are at the top of the pile, all you have to do is click ‘Instant Update’ from the menu bar when you are logged in. Doing this every few days will make sure you’re always visible: everyone’s doing it!

Let Google Find You

Whilst we cannot ‘insert’ your Media Match resume in to major internet search engines’ results, we can do out best to make sure they find you. Ensure that you select ‘Allow Search Engines to find me’* in your contact options (the last section under ‘Update Profile’). Many of our freelancers are reporting that they have found tv and film jobs directly as a result of their Media Match profile appearing in a Google search!

Upload Reels and Samples

Jazz up your profile by adding multimedia content to it. If you have any audio of video samples of your work, attach them to your Media Match profile. What better way to exhibit exactly what you’re made of? You can have as many uploaded files as you like – provided each is under 30Mb in size, and is in a format supported by the Media Match system. Simply click ‘Add Media’ on the ‘Profile’ submenu.

Credits and Employment History

It’s essential that you list your recent relevant credits and your latest employment history, with emphasis on tv and film jobs. Flag up the achievements you are proud of, and be bold in selling yourself to your next potential employer. As you are aware the TV and film jobs industry is very tough, so you need to maximise your chances by selling yourself through your profile.

Cover letters

When applying* for a job directly through Media Match, you are given the opportunity to write a cover letter to the job employer. A link to your online profile is included underneath that letter. The cover letter is the first contact, and first impression you make with your prospective new employer – it’s vital to make a good impression and to make them excited about you. Two lines saying ‘look at my resume’ is not impressive. Give a brief description of your recent achievements, and outline why you think you are perfect for this job. Imagine the person reading your cover letter has already looked at 50, and there are another 50 to follow. What is it about you that’s going to make them take that next step and look at your online Media Match profile (complete with pictures, videos and a full, downloadable Word or PDF resume)?

*visibility in Media Match database search results, visibility to external search engines and applying for jobs are only available to premium (subscribing) members of Media Match.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed