Thursday, July 27, 2006
Final Scene for Film Office?
The mission of the Pittsburgh Film Office, according to its website, is to promote Southwestern Pennsylvania as a prospective location for shooting film and television productions. It is a non-profit organization that receives public dollars to help its mission. In that regard, it is no different from the numerous state and city-based film offices around the country trying their best to lure a share of Hollywood money.
The recent history of the Film Office has been tumultuous. Its primary funding source—the hotel tax—disappeared when the new convention center’s bills came due. Its finances have been the subject of a County audit and its director the target of an investigation over ties to an industry figure accused of embezzlement (the Film Office was cleared of any wrongdoing).
Now the Office has raised the ire of a City Councilman and members of the Pittsburgh film community by putting together a plan that allows the director to actually move to Los Angeles to mine for opportunities for Pittsburgh.
Personnel issues aside, is the Film Office effective? Its website filmography shows 122 film and television productions shot in Pittsburgh with about half of those occurring before 1990 when the Film Office was created. Somehow, nearly the same number of productions were shot without their help. Then again, hotels, office buildings, and sports venues used to be built without government intervention as well.
Supporters of the Film Office cite economic impact studies, the most recent number for Pittsburgh cited as $273 million. Verifying the true impact is likely as elusive as tracking the job results of the state’s numerous economic development programs. Much of the film production business and related job categories would probably exist without the presence of a taxpayer-funded film attraction agency.
Even though the Office’s critics are calling for a “bold new approach for film production” in the region, don’t expect an approach that scraps the state’s and city’s involvement in film. The state itself is offering $10 million in incentives in this year’s budget along with other favorable tax treatments to attract production here. A better way to do it would be to make the organization solely dependent on private funding from those that directly benefit from the film business.
The recent history of the Film Office has been tumultuous. Its primary funding source—the hotel tax—disappeared when the new convention center’s bills came due. Its finances have been the subject of a County audit and its director the target of an investigation over ties to an industry figure accused of embezzlement (the Film Office was cleared of any wrongdoing).
Now the Office has raised the ire of a City Councilman and members of the Pittsburgh film community by putting together a plan that allows the director to actually move to Los Angeles to mine for opportunities for Pittsburgh.
Personnel issues aside, is the Film Office effective? Its website filmography shows 122 film and television productions shot in Pittsburgh with about half of those occurring before 1990 when the Film Office was created. Somehow, nearly the same number of productions were shot without their help. Then again, hotels, office buildings, and sports venues used to be built without government intervention as well.
Supporters of the Film Office cite economic impact studies, the most recent number for Pittsburgh cited as $273 million. Verifying the true impact is likely as elusive as tracking the job results of the state’s numerous economic development programs. Much of the film production business and related job categories would probably exist without the presence of a taxpayer-funded film attraction agency.
Even though the Office’s critics are calling for a “bold new approach for film production” in the region, don’t expect an approach that scraps the state’s and city’s involvement in film. The state itself is offering $10 million in incentives in this year’s budget along with other favorable tax treatments to attract production here. A better way to do it would be to make the organization solely dependent on private funding from those that directly benefit from the film business.
