2012 Documentary of the Chinese dissident was premiered at Sundance this week.

Utah is getting a lot of love from the film world this week, and one piece that caught our attention tells of the struggle of Beijing artist Ai Weiwei, who last year was detained for 81 days by the government due to his belief in (and actions of) freely expressing himself.

Ai’s story is depicted as a bold and brash artist who became somewhat cautious after his detention period in 2011. Understandably so, from some of the footage and reports unearthed; the dark edginess to the film is not just for dramatic effect, it is genuine uneasiness that manages to creep into the viewer from the shady goings on. The documentary also chronicles several years leading up to his arrest, from his childhood in Beijing, to his blossoming years in New York, to his high profile work and his growing politically-charged comments and works.

Director Alison Klayman, who lived in China from 2006 to 2010 working as a freelance journalist, says she made Never Sorry wanting to “record what happens when someone makes the choice to speak openly and provocatively and face down the consequences”, and that is exactly what Ai Weiwei has done. Crossing the line from popular artist into social activist sees him shy away from post-detention interviews, and choose his appearances wisely (Ai did not attend the premiere screening at Sundance).

Although you’re going to have to wait a little while to see the film in full, you can check out the teaser preview below.

Director / Producer & Cinematographer: Alison Klayman
Executive Producers: Julie Goldman, Andrew Cohen, Karl Katz
Contributing Producer: Colin Jones
Producer: Adam Schlesinger
Editor: Jen Fineran
Music: Illan Isakov

This video was produced by independent filmmakers supported in part by the nonprofit Sundance Institute.

For more information, head to aiweiweineversorry.com/

by Lee Jarvis.

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.