The 48 Hour Film Project is an international tour spanning over 80 countries, in each of which a team of TV and Film production professionals make a movie – that is, write, shoot, edit and score it – in just 48 hours. Last year saw over 40,000 participants ball their wears, emphasising the amount of growth the project has seen since it’s inception in 2001.

The whirlwind weekend aims simply to encourage filmmaking and promote filmmakers in various locations across the globe, holding events in 55 different US cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, Austin, Washington DC, and more. On the Friday night, you get a character, a prop, a line of dialogue and a genre, all to include in your movie. 48 hours later, the movie must be complete. Then it will show at a local theater, usually in the next week. Having the 48 hour time limit is not meant to be seen as restricting, instead emphasizing that creativity and teamwork skills will serve you well. There is also something liberating about just going for it, and getting the shots, editing, and effects completed rather than talking too much about them and accomplishing nothing.

From the 48 Hour Film Project’s History, “Back in May 2001, Mark Ruppert came up with a crazy idea: to try to make a film in 48 hours. He quickly enlisted his filmmaking partner, Liz Langston, and several other DC filmmakers to form their own teams and join him in this experiment. The big question back then was ‘Would films made in only 48 hours even be watchable?’ The answer was a resounding ‘Yes’ “.

Entries for the Chicago weekend (July 29th) have just opened today (register here), and a full calendar can be found here. Rules and information for filmmakers can be found here, and they even include a list which you can join if you are not able to form your own team but wish to offer your services as part of a team in your area. (That’s right……… here.)


by Lee Jarvis.

California has long been the heart of the film industry. It saw huge growth throughout the early 1900s with huge investment in infrastructure and migration from the rest of the US. It’s perfect weather and vast landscapes were ideal for filming, and the glamorous lifestyle portrayed by movie stars helped the Los Angeles area blossom into a haven for anyone looking for a break.

With an incredible rise, there is often an inevitable fall. As society and technology changed, so did people’s social habits. Cinema wasn’t as popular once TVs, drive-thru fast-food and rock’n'roll came around. Whilst the LA population continued to sky rocket, the film industry was shook up. Paramount Pictures are now the last major film studio still headquartered in Hollywood, the other having moved around the city after the Golden Age had burned out. MGM went from selling 50 movies a year, to selling their Culver City studio lot. The decline is also re-iterated today, with recent financial struggles forcing production companies and film studios to scrutinize the economic impact of their works harsher than ever. Even still, MGM even had to file for bankruptcy just two months ago.

Many film projects have move across country, rather than having to pack up altogether; this is made possible and more common with technological advances. Equipment is better, faster, smaller, lighter. Projects can be worked on digitally, saving space and time for transport.

Last year I came across this interesting map of filming locations selected for visual similarities between each area and their worldwide counterparts. The map was used by Paramount Studios and is from around 1927.

Nowadays, the reality is that you can fly a team out to the middle of anywhere, and your running costs may even be cheaper than the LA equivalent. This recent report in the LA Times shares that “even with the increased activity, feature production remained less than half what it was in 1996, underscoring the long-term challenges L.A. faces as it struggles to keep movies and TV shows from leaving Southern California”

Things may be looking up. Film LA Inc. recorded an increase in commercial and television shoots over the last 12 months, although still some way off of where things were 15 years ago. The growth in using video as marketing and promotional tools means that every business is looking for talent to help expand their branding.

Is this enough to reel it back in? Are the new markets evolving fast enough to keep the film population in LA? Have YOU left LA? Have you taken work out of town? Would you never leave? Is all this complete bumpf? Share your thoughts below…

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.