Alaska News

Maybe Chuck Norris can help Alaska decide the future of film subsidies

CC: Alaska Legislature; U.S. states with film subsidy programs
Subject: The Biz
@page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }

Dear legend of screen and dojo,

We're sorry to bother you, but Alaska is in the middle of what some people are calling "an arms race" among states trying to attract filmmakers through state subsidy, and it could really use your help.

According to Internet lore, you're capable of numerous implausible and even impossible feats. We've heard that you can roundhouse kick a $10 bill into 200 nickels, can divide by zero, and have counted to infinity -- twice. We've even heard that you can order a Big Mac at Burger King and get one. Since diversifying Alaska's economy is apparently a similarly difficult challenge, we thought you'd deem it worthy of your intervention.

With you on its side, Alaska would be unbeatable in the fight for movie industry favor. And if you decide you can't help, at least then we'd have a better idea of when to throw in the towel. We know you don't feel concern -- you just cause it -- but we're worried and slightly confused about the debate brewing for Alaska's very young film industry.

You may not know this, but the state of Alaska offers millions in transferable tax credits to film productions that make movies and TV shows in Alaska. In practice, productions usually qualify for reimbursement by the Alaska Film Office for around one-third of their budgets. The state doesn't disclose what kinds of expenses are being reimbursed, nor does anyone divulge who's buying the credits after they're issued (three guesses, though). But over the three years since the program has been in effect, the state has given out around $13 million in subsidies, and Outside film crews say it's a key reason they choose to film in Alaska. Undoubtedly, there has been a big increase in TV shows and feature films being made in Alaska since the subsidy program began.

Which plenty of Alaskans think is great. For decades, we The Concerned were dismayed to see Alaska's unique scenery and people stuck being depicted by inferior body doubles. We always used to imagine how much more awesome the TV show "Northern Exposure" would have been if it had been produced in Talkeetna, Wrangell or Cordova. We're not members of the glitterati, but we have to believe there's no way it gets shut out in the 1991 or 1993 Emmy Awards in that case.

At any rate, as glad as we are that the full glory of Alaska is finally being shown as it actually appears, and performance-inclined Alaskans are finally getting a chance to build their resumes without leaving state, we're also concerned that the program is artificially growing an industry that won't be able to sustain itself if the state money dries up. After all, it's not like Ship Creek warehouses are filling up with sound stages and CGI skunk works.

ADVERTISEMENT

Reportedly, one study counts Alaska's incentive program as the most lucrative in the nation. And with other states battered by the recession beginning to scale back their film programs, it looks like Alaska's comfortably in the lead. But not all states are scaling back; some are boosting their incentives. Alaska's program has a sunset clause that requires it to be renewed by the Legislature, and its continued existence will be under debate next session.

And what little information has been made available by the state indicates that the program's not a huge return on the state's investment. For every dollar of state film subsidy, no more than 30 cents went to an Alaskan worker or business, and for every dollar an Alaskan made from a project approved for subsidy, a non-Alaskan made nine. But on the other hand, program supporters say that study doesn't account for hard-to-measure benefits to Alaskans who want a start in the industry, or the "ripple effect" of money, into the tens of millions by some accounts, hitting local economies as cast and crew arrive at local businesses packing substantial per-diems and personal cutlery budgets.

Either way, it'll all get hashed out during the upcoming session. A bill sponsored by Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, would give the program another $200 million, make small changes, and push back its curtain call for another ten years, but some lawmakers are already promising opposition.

We The Concerned don't really know what all the fuss is about. After all, Alaska is notorious for putting up public money to encourage industries that may or may not pay off in the long run and don't immediately result in jobs for Alaskans. We won't run down the whole depressing list here, but few Alaskans appear to have new work lined up at the now-defunct Anchorage seafood plant, or a job created by the state's $500-million promise to reimburse TransCanada for working toward what appears an increasingly unlikely natural gas pipeline.

So even though the rate of return on movie credits doesn't look too great, we the Concerned think Alaska has done much worse already. In fact, if we didn't know any better, we'd suspect all the opposition to film subsidies is an outgrowth of the commonly-held prejudice that artistic or creative pursuits don't actually create jobs. After all, the thinking goes, if there's no dirt moved around or piles of guts left over, what's really been accomplished?

We're also aware that movie productions seldom run afoul of the communists over at the EPA, the hippies down at the Army Corps of Engineers, or money-grubbing pro-bono environmental lawyers -- all common sticking points when it comes to major industry in Alaska. State money has been sacrificed to touch off a gold rush or two lately, perhaps most notably in oil and gas drilling in the Cook Inlet, but endangered species laws won't have much effect on Alaska filmmaking. Who knows, belugas might even like being cast as protagonists instead of villains for once.

Given all the uncertainty over what is the best use of Alaska's current oil revenue bounty, and what industries are the most deserving of a slice, we started thinking of other industries that could use a hand. Alaska agriculture is doing pretty well mostly on its own lately, and $200 million seems like it would go a long way to help.

There are also probably plenty of fishing skippers out there -- commercial and sport charter alike -- who could use transferable tax credits. Ditto for local tourism-related businesses, such as travel agents, hospitality providers, remote lodges, wilderness guides, street food vendors, tchotchke purveyors and flying services, would all probably love a chance to cut their rates, hire more staff, or otherwise build up a cushion to weather the lean times.

The University of Alaska system could probably also use $200 million worth of state money over the next 10 years. Who knows, it might be worthwhile to fund research that might help cut energy costs, grow more efficient food, address chronic public health problems, or maybe even finally figure out how to grow king crab in captivity.

But then again, if history is any indication, the state's budget surplus won't last forever, and businesses that can't survive on their own probably won't last long. Plus, if there are too many subsidy programs, the state might go broke, and then it's hard times all around.

Come to think of it, there are two ways to encourage industrial growth. Maybe everyone's looking at encouraging Alaska filming from the wrong direction. If the goal of a state film subsidy program is to make sure Alaska doesn't have any stunt doubles, and to make sure local film workers keep having entirely too much work each summer, maybe it's time to look at punitive measures. Which is where you come in. As we understand it, Mr. Norris, you don't mow your lawn, you just dare the grass to grow.

So we think you'll agree that if the film subsidy fails, it's because it offered too many carrots and not enough nunchuks.

If the film credit doesn't get renewed before it ends, maybe the Legislature should help the Alaska Film Office to trademark Alaska's image. Then, the state could sue the pants off of film productions that purport to show Alaska, but really don't.

And when the incentives dry up and the penalties come out, you can bet there won't be any reality-show parasites dragging Alaska's image through the mud with overwrought drama and uncomfortably low return on state investment.

That way, Alaska's image gets protected, local productions can still be offered breaks on making films in Alaska, and tax and budget hawks can replace a drain in the bathtub of state with a potential money spigot.

Plus, with you on Alaska's side, enforcement won't be a problem. Will it? We hear you're so fast you can bite your own ear.

Hiiii-YA!

ADVERTISEMENT

The Concerned

Contact The Concerned

ADVERTISEMENT