NY Times: States won't fund production of movies that do not promote tourism or glamorize the state

[alp227]

"A State May Pay for a Movie, if It Likes Its Message" by Michael Cieply, The New York Times, June 15, 2010, page A1

Janet Lockwood, the film commissioner for Michigan, refused to provide public funding for the production of Andrew van den Houten's latest horror film project The Woman. Cieply reported: "Ms. Lockwood particularly objected to 'this extreme horror film’s subject matter, namely realistic cannibalism; the gruesome and graphically violent depictions described in the screenplay; and the explicit nature of the script,'" and she stated, "This film is unlikely to promote tourism in Michigan or to present or reflect Michigan in a positive light." Such funding would subsidize up to 42% of the film cost; van den Houten had gotten funding for a cannibal movie Offspring less than two years ago.

Pending now is Texas's decision for funding Robert Rodriguez's upcoming thriller Machete, to be released in September.

Also, if a movie involves the US military or defense, it must depict those branches positively:

Hollywood has long dealt with stringent controls on content imposed by government entities like the Central Intelligence Agency and branches of the military when they offer access, equipment or other help.

“The Pentagon’s policy is they will assist film and television if it shows the military in a positive light, and, if not, they’ll assist in changing the script to put it in a positive light,” said David L. Robb, who wrote the book “Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies.”

Ever since the National Endowment for the Arts funded the "Piss Christ" photo, American governments have gotten antsy about funding controversial forms of art.

[PM Martin]

1. kick

[XemaSab]

2. And where does that leave me as a Californian?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

11. Everyone EXPECTS California to be twisted and depraved anyway.

That's why most people visit it.

I mean, c'mon...you thought we came for the fresh citrus?

[bluestateguy]

3. This should not surprise anyone

The Pentagon does not cooperate with movies that do not depict the military in a favorable light.

Your always welcome to produce whatever movies you wish, but free speech does not equal a government subsidy.

[Ken Burch]

4. You mean, Michigan doesn't want Cannibal Tourism?

The slogans could be great:

"Michigan...I can already TASTE it!"

"Take A Bite out of the U.P.!"

"Detroit...with a side of fries!".

[rpannier]

8. +1

[XemaSab]

14. That's Wisconsin's schtick

:hide:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I understand why. Everyone thought Chicago was very pro-monster after the Relic.

[Nailzberg]

6. You're still free to make a movie without the assistance of the military.

They're just not gonna give you a bunch of choppers for filming.

[morgan2]

7. why on earth should states be funding movies?

There's something to be said for equal costs associated with the military's resources in making movies, but why would a government organization be funding movies if it didn't have some direct benefit to the state involved. That's like asking why the military commissions an army video game, but won't pay to fund dance dance revolution.

[eShirl]

10. because the production hires locals for much of the cast and crew, contracts w/ local businesses

for ton of things (equipment rentals, food service catering, lodging, transportation, etc etc)

the production of a film is a boon to the local economy

[Robb]

16. Usually. nt

[hobbit709]

9. So they basically want commercials for their state.

[Blue_Tires]

12. Thanks to "Fargo", I now know where to go in Minn. to get pancakes AND get laid...

:D

[Rebubula]

13. Plus...

...when you rent a cabin, ALWAYS make sure there is a working wood chipper on site.

/go bears

[gratuitous]

15. Would "To Kill a Mockingbird" qualify?

After all, that movie portrayed a mad dog, poverty, racism, rigged justice, child endangerment and a mentally handicapped person.

[NNN0LHI]

17. Anatomy of a Murder probably wouldn't

It was set and filmed on location in Marquette, Michigan.

Don

[Ken Burch]

20. It would have, but I don't think it was filmed on location.

You wouldn't have been able to make a film in the South in 1962 that admitted that black people could be falsely accused of anything.

[AngryAmish]

18. Ummm, anyone remember Mapplethorp in the 80s

Same thing.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. I have no problem with it...

Why should they? States probably shouldnt be funding private movie productions anyways, but if they are why should they fund ones that show them negatively? Whenever you accept "free money" from someone they will usually attach some strings.

[AngryAmish]

21. NEA controversy? Ed Meese? Anyone?