On Tuesday, the Duluth News Tribune editorial board opined that Minnesota should do a better job ensuring that Minnesota-set movies are filmed in Minnesota. They lamented that mediocre releases like “Leatherheads” and “New in Town” were both set in Minnesota but obviously (sometimes ridiculously) were filmed elsewhere. The editorial concluded that other places offer more incentives for filmmakers, which is why this happens. We should do better at attracting film crews to Minnesota, we are told.
Lawmakers allocated only $2.5 million, which later was reduced to $1.2 million, which, late last week was nixed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty via a line-item veto.
But that chilly reception should have come as little surprise considering the state’s massive budget deficits and the difficult economy.
“Not this year” doesn’t have to mean “never,” however. Minnesota shouldn’t turn its back on Hollywood and the millions that film projects bring. When the economy improves and the time is right, [a program offering film incentives] deserves support.
On the surface I agree. The filming of “North Country” on the Iron Range was ultimately a good thing economically (and culturally, even if we have a very uncool way of handling famous people in our midst). But I have one fundamental counter argument that runs parallel with some of the problems I have with northern Minnesota economic development in general.
Here again we are trumpeting the need to offer up something impersonal (money) that we don’t have much of to entice outside forces (great, powerful forces we do not understand) to come in and save us. Since we’re talking about movies, let’s call this the “Three Amigos” approach. We saw on a movie somewhere that Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short could protect us from bandits and are now pooling our money together to do hire them for just such foolish purposes. (Yes, I know it that the Three Amigos succeeded in the movie, but that was a MOOOOVIE).
I’m all for making movies in Minnesota. Why aren’t we encouraging Minnesota filmmakers to do just that? Why not tell our own story to the outside world and showing them what can be done here? By helping several dozen smaller, local productions based on artistic merit we might have a better chance at the big bucks in the long run. When some good Minnesota films demonstrate the versatile landscape and seasonal appeal of this state, maybe we won’t have to waive a bunch of damn money at people who don’t respect us. Once we have trained a stable of film production professionals available to work perhaps some of the logistical barriers of filming in Minnesota could be broken down.
Movies are a tricky business, in that they are business-driven but based on art. If you sacrifice the quality and importance of the art the business will fail anyway, no matter how much money you pump in. “New in Town” is not our goal. Our goal should be to show that quality productions can happen organically. The same is true of just about any industry we’re trying to build here.
You are absolutely right, Aaron. Bribing your way into economic development, and that’s what these payments are, only lasts as long as the bribe. And only has the effect of the development LESS the bribe. We would be far, FAR, better off to spend our dollars on education and the arts. In the end, those two industries, for industries they indeed are (diffuse, but still industries), will account for far more economic development in our state than mere bribes to capitalists ever will.
We needs must have a longer view, and be less focused on short term gratification.
I liked “Leatherheads.”
They’re having the same debate over in Wisconsin.