The buzz is that Canada has become Hollywood’s new back lot.  It’s actually much worse.  In 1991 I shot the Hasbro GI Joe campaign in Vancouver, Canada.  At the time I spoke with the producer about the cost differential.  I also spoke with the crew to discover what their rates were, and if they were unionized.   I discovered that the below the line crew cost, including the effective discount because the US dollar was worth 20% more (at the time) than the Canadian dollar, was negated by the rental cost of the equipment.  The real savings were in the lack of SAG residuals for the actors.  I was told that just the residuals for the actors in this series of commercials would be about $1 million range.  The agency spent a total of $1 million on production, including the actors salaries.  When I came back to the US, I approached SAG, the DGA, and my own union (then Local 659) about this issue.  None of these organizations responded, mainly because they felt the dollars were too small, and this was isolated to commercials.  Now we see what has happened.  These savings coupled with the “rebates” the Canadian government gives “Canadian” productions makes for big savings for producers.  I wouldn’t hold my breath that this situation in Canada will remain the way it is.  There is already a growing backlash against American productions produced through Canadian fronts that qualify as Canadian productions.  This is most visible in Canada during prime time when the majority of presentations are supposed to be Canadian, and they are these very same American based story lines produced as “Canadian” for the rebates, but now also eligible to be shown on prime time for the same reason.  These productions are Americanizing the Canadian culture, and if many of the Canadians have their way, it will be discontinued.  Joining Canada is a long list of countries with good crews and emerging infrastructure.  

This same agency has also filmed in Australia, Denmark, South Africa, and other countries that have large Northern European populations that can be used for back ground extras.  Added to this mix now is Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungry, and other former Soviet East Block countries.  For films with budgets of $1 million plus, these countries are viable alternatives.  Crews with solid experience from making state supported films are available.  Their industry had collapsed after the fall of the Communists, leaving the people to do whatever they can to support themselves.  On a film I shot in Bulgaria the Gaffer and Key Grip were making $80 for a 10 hour day.  Eight US dollars per hour was way more than the average worker was making at that time, and probably still is.  There are a couple of factors that limit the number of productions these countries can support locally.  Though the lab in Sofia, Bulgaria could handle the negative development for a number of films simultaneously, video dailies might not be reliably delivered, while film dailies would be less of a problem.  Also, the screening facilities were not of sufficient quality to  reflect the true image on the negative.  

 

In relation to crews, I have a concept I use when I speak with producers about filming in distant cities and locations that are to be crewed locally.  For example, when I arrived in Bulgaria I asked the gaffer how many films were shot in Sophia under the Communists.  He said about 10 to 12.  I also asked him how long these films were.  He replied that they varied in length from ½ hour to 1½ hours.  I then asked him if he worked on all the films, or did they over lap.  He said he worked on 5 or 6, and that he got paid the same whether he worked on 2 or 3 or 10 to 12.  Five or six kept him busy enough and gave him enough time off.  I asked him how many films could be shot simultaneously in Sophia and be crewed to the level we were working.  He said one other film, maybe two, but that would be stretching it.  So, to get back to the concept I speak to producers about, I ask how many crews deep is the city?  That is, how many films could be shot at the same time without sacrificing the quality of the people in the skill positions?  Sophia was 2-3 crews deep.  I shot in Columbus, Ohio, and it’s a city that is about 2 crews deep, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is about 2 crews deep.  What this factor means is that if there are two full sized film productions already filming in Columbus, there probably aren’t any skilled people left.  If we choose to film there anyway, this fact will directly reflect the amount of time it takes to set a shot, and the quality of lighting and camera moves.  There is always the option of importing talented and skilled people from the production centers around the country, but that defeats the producer’s purpose of saving money since it’s more expensive than filming locally.

With a strong US dollar and crews available around the world, producers are going to take advantage of exotic and interesting locations.  They have done this for years.  Think of the spaghetti westerns starring Clint Eastwood that were shot in Spain.  This was an early response to a small budget.  Action pictures have been shot in the Philippines for years for the same reason.  Now the globe has shrunk to include other countries.  As long as there is a strong US dollar, productions will explore the world.  When the US dollar becomes less strong then the advantages of foreign productions will diminish.  Also, as the different countries increase their standard of living, the wages of the film crews will continue to rise and offset the economic advantage.  Canada now has a rebate on the below the line crew expenses.  I’m sure part of the reason is that their wages have risen to require this direct effort to undercut US production costs.

Southern California, Hollywood, is still the gorilla in production.  Last year over $30 billion of production was spent in California.  I’m not sure how that was tabulated, since the companies based in Southern California would report money spent no matter where the physical location of the production.  If you think of a company like Time/Warner that includes all of the Turner companies, it’s a challenge to know what state those production expenses are reported --  Los angeles, Atlanta, New York?  Last year New York did about $3 billion in production, while all of Canada did about $3 billion.  Still, the DGA and SAG released a report that runaway productions cost the US economy over $10 billion last year.   Shows like Xena, Conan, and Hercules were all shot in foreign locations to save on crew costs, and particularly cast expenses.  Still it’s important to remember that the bulk of TV and film production is shot in and around Los Angeles for some very good reasons.  There is the availability of talented crews.  Los Angeles has the most crew depth of any city in the world.  For example, there are about 3,500 camera local members based in Los Angeles out of about 6000 total members in the International Cinematographers Guild.  If you do simple math and figure a camera crew will total about 5 people, that’s 700 complete camera crews – only in the Los Angeles area!  And, this doesn’t include people who work in the camera department and aren’t unionized.

 

California is floating two bills (Assembly Bills 358 and AB484) to provide tax incentives based on production being wholly in California.  Although Californians may wonder why the trade unions won’t get behind these bills, the reason is simple.   One is the camera union, International Cinematographers Guild, Local 600, is a national union.  The DGA and SAG are national guilds too.  What is good for California is not good for New York or Florida or any other production state.  There is also the relationship the IATSE has to the production crews it represents in Canada.  This union represents all productions shot in North America.  The IATSE can’t move very much or very fast because of this.  The efforts to solve this problem must be on a national level.  If you examine the report issued by SAG and the DGA, the recommendation is for the guilds and unions to work on a federal level to even out the competition with other countries competing for US production dollars.  This approach is probably the best since it would pit a national government (the US) against other national governments.  Individual states can make an effort, but clearly no state has the same power as the federal government.

On another front, a post house in the Los Angeles area recently went bankrupt.  During their reorganization, the employees were laid off on a Friday and rehired at lower wages with no union representation on the following Monday.  Although they were doing the same work in the same location, they were being paid less.  These people experienced “downsizing” of their income.  Non-union films that continue to shoot in the Los Angeles area are finding good deals from equipment rental houses that feel the pinch of the “runaway” production.  Also, good crews are available who are willing to work under their “normal” rate.  I’ve shot a couple of films this year with excellent crews who, unfortunately were not making what they are worth.  But they are working.  

 

There’s another issue that was highlighted in an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 27, 1999.  In that article, the statistics from Los Angeles economist, Jack Kyser, estimated that the “employment level peaked at 269,300 in February 1998, slipping to about 241,200 today.”  The article goes on to state that Hollywood’s growth of the ‘90s is now flat.  There are 28,100 now out of work, or another way to look at it; those 269,300 people are now competing for 28,100 fewer jobs.  In the meantime, the production that remains constant in some countries, or is increasing in other countries appears to be taking a bigger bite out of the production pie.  In essence they are because there are fewer films being produced now than 8 or 10 years ago.  For example, Disney “released 20 movies in 1999 compared with 31 just three years ago and about 40 a year in the early ‘90s.”  Couple that with the networks shrinking audience and their desire to cut all production costs.  It’s clear that the number of “news” shows, or reality based shows, or “ride along” shows that cost little and fill a space for advertising is the new paradigm.  These new shows are shot on video with ENG size crews, not the large talented group necessary for telling a dramatic story on film.  Along with fewer jobs, Directors of Photography in Los Angeles also compete with the whole world.  On any given weekend the ads for new films indicate names of the cinematographers from all over the world, often also with a plethora of initials tacked on behind their names.  Finally, there are the film school grads that want to work in the industry.  There are many talented young cinematographers who also compete for the fewer production jobs now available.  It’s an interesting business where appearances often matter more to the people making decisions than the skill and experience an individual DP has.

One of the best things Southern California, New York, Chicago, and the other production center have going for them are the existing media infrastructures.  There is a deep talent pool, not only for on camera talent, but for all the technicians who actually do the physical work.  I think the industry is going through a periodic re-adjustment.  The ringer in the whole equation is the digital revolution.  In the music industry the digital revolution and distribution on the net is changing the face of how music is released.  It is now possible to directly distribute music on the net.  In a sense it’s much more democratic and available – all issues netzins’ value.  In the film world, the DV cam (Digital Video Camera) with a reasonable quality allows artists, and others, to make their work available on the net too.  Right now the quality is an issue, but with convergence of smart TVs with computers and broad band access, it will be solved sooner than later.  As the quality improves, and DTV and HDTV come on line, those little cameras’ visual weaknesses will become more apparent next to 35mm film production, or even 16mm film production.  (A full discussion of this appears in “The Future of Cinema” in IP, July, 1999 – soon to be up loaded on my web site.)  There is still the need for talented Cinematographers and Lighting Directors, maybe more so in the future than now.

 

For the moment, re-invention is the name of the game.  As studio productions decline, and the studios try to maintain their control on distribution, independent films are on the rise.  The studios let others take the hard risk with venture capital and then buy the finished product – a negative pick up.  Although these films are “low budget” and “no budget,” they offer a window to the future.  As cinematographers, we have to hitch our career on directors.  As a director rises, we also rise.  There are some good examples of this: Allan Daviau shot “ET” as his first big film, Robert Richardson connected with Oliver Stone on “El Salvador” and went to work on Oliver Stone’s other films, Janez Kominski selected by Speilberg to film “Shindler’s List,” etc.  Although there are a lot of films being made that shouldn’t be made, there are small films being shot that have the potential to be wonderful.  These are the projects I seek.  I worked on a film earlier this year with a first time director.  Although I dealt with some first time director issues, the film is a good piece of work.  It has a chance to work in the marketplace as an alternative story, probably PG Rated.  I shot another film last year with another first time director.  The script was good, the acting solid, and the film shows a new voice with a vision on film story telling.

 

 

        Mark Woods

        February, 2000