$30 Million Waco Gets the Boot From the Texas Film Commission

Hey, thanks Rod for putting some comment up here. But your use of the word 'snark' is both dickish and dismissive of the awesomeness that happens on the A-ist. So really, a bit more respect is in order. Especially when being so closed-minded in such an uphill ethics battle.

What's also diskish is your highway allegory: you follow the speed limit because that's THE LAW. Uh... big problem here, brain-o: speed limits are reasonable guidelines everybody can follow, and you use them to obfuscate, mish-mashing a no-brainer law everybody more or less follows with the fact that culture is often unjustly affected by the subjective ignorance and/or impulsiveness of some versus the potential economic impact of many. You're the one who's being lazy, intellectually, not Steph. And the fact that you can't see that (or have assumed no one else would) is appalling at the greatest, and at the least, embarrassing for you.

I don't know who you are as a person, but here's how you come off: another [***Ed Note: excerpt has been edited out after user-generated request, due to defamatory content as per our comment policy.***], who has a modicum of control of public opinion/assets/whatever, and is going to sashay around like no one will ever dream of banishing your ass to Elba.

You justify and rationalize and quote Ivins like the Devil quoting Jesus. Reassess your position: you're not a good guy, if you ever were one. We don't need you, we need a real person who cares; we need the reincarnation of Anne Richards.

The last people who should ever get to weigh in on what censorship is are people who control the money funding art. It ought to rest with an informed readership, an involved public (ie, the "snark" on a blog's comment feed). Publishers and producers obviously can't be trusted. Some editors are o.k., but none can be empathetic to writers, as there is an unavoidable power differential between those who write and those who can delete (just ask Allen).

What it comes down to is, if you want the best art, you need contributors/writers/painters/filmmakers unfettered by policy, status quo, and bureaucrats. Because art is incompatible with control; art only exist becasue of freedom, or in reaction to its absence.

If you want mediocrity, well, just keep on keepin' on.

Movies are fiction, and in fiction, anything goes -- including criticism of a state and the mannerisms and customs of its people. Texas has made a ton of tourism money off "inaccurate" TV shows such as "Dallas" and "Walker, Texas Ranger." People still show up wanting to see Southfork and other memorabilia of "Dallas" long after that show went off the air. I would even be willing to bet that chainsaw sales have been boosted in Texas by movies such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." I say let anyone film any kind of movie here--critical or not critical of Texas and Texans--with state incentives, and then let's be embarrassed all the way to the bank.

Emilio Ferrari of Entertainment 7 says they will "never ever" film a movie in Texas as a result of this TFC decision.

http://datelineoblivion.blogspot.com/2009/05/waco-production-company-on-texas-we.html

Thank you, Steph, for your thoughtful response and your upcoming follow-up piece. I look forward to it.

I understand your discomfort with placing such power in the hands of one person. However, if the alternative is to place the decision making power in, say, the Texas Legislature, I'd much prefer Bob. In him we have someone who's worked extensively in the film industry and proven himself to be a fair, open-minded, non-partisan adjudicator on these matters.

As Molly Ivins frequently said, "You got to dance with them what brung you." A condition of passing and funding this incentive bill was the content clause. If we must dance with it, I'm deeply comforted to have Bob leading the way.

First off - thank you to everyone who has commented so far. When this piece was written, it was in no way meant to be a smear piece against the TFC or Bob Hudgins, even if the snarkiness may have come across that way. I really did want to create a piece that would spur a dialogue.

In response specifically to Minizoo and Rodney - wait! There is more to come! Believe it or not, this lazy ass writer did in fact have a lovely conversation with Mr. Hudgins yesterday afternoon, and will be writing a follow up piece just as soon as her little fingers will allow. The current piece that you see above is based entirely on information gleaned from other reporters in our town, which I now know to have some holes in it, but I felt that it was important to get the story out at soon as I had read about it (which was Monday night - I had been following the story from the first mention of the project on the AAS website, but these developments got lost in my google reader for a bit).

Furthermore, right or wrong, I believe that the snark in this piece oozed (at the time I wrote it) from my level of discomfort with the fact that one person in the state of Texas is appointed to interpret the law as it stands, especially since it reads, "In determining whether to act on or deny a grant application, the office shall consider general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the citizens of Texas." The Branch Davidian mess is certainly an event that many Texans have varied and passionate views on, so how can one person (be it Mr. Hudgins or someone else) interpret what my standard of decency is, since my beliefs could be different than his? I take much more issue with the statute itself (which is why I called it "stupid") than with this specific judgment, even more so now after I have talked to "the officer" and understand how the law is interpreted.

Please read the follow up piece when it gets published, as there is a ton of information that is not being reported and we hope to clear that up.

I generally enjoy the Austinist's snark, but in this case it's not just smart ass writing; it's inflammatory and lazy, and it has the potential to cause harm to a much needed program.

Rather than assuming the "Waco" project meets the state's guidelines for the incentive program and that Mr. Hudgins's judgment must surely be faulty, wouldn't it have been better to pick up the phone and call Mr. Hudgins first? I realize you're not gunning for a Pulitzer here, but by repeating canards (an unnamed politician played a role in this decision); erroneously invoking "censorship;" and assuming the movie script must be true to facts without even attempting to corroborate, you're only fanning the flames of this overblown controversy.

As a board member of the Texas Motion Picture Alliance, the group that fought for the incentive program, I understand how badly Texas needed these incentives. Without them, film production, once a major economic force in our state, was on its knees. While a great step forward, the program is not perfect, nor are many such programs. It's crucial to understand that, as with any grant program, there are conditions. Most every foundation grant I've applied for as a non-profit board member, for example, has exerted numerous qualifying restrictions. When Big Brothers Big Sisters is rejected for a grant because it fails to meet qualifying standards, is that too censorship?

Please remember that the content restriction is written into the law. We can gripe about it, we can organize to change it, but as long as it's in effect, we are bound to follow it. (Hell, I may want to drive 85 mph on I-35, but the law limits me. That’s the law, like it or not.) Mr. Hudgins may not personally agree with the state's language governing who qualifies for incentives, but he is bound to follow the law.

Having worked with Bob Hudgins for years and known him to be nothing less than a tireless and selfless advocate for any and all forms and flavors of production in Texas, I, for one, applaud his thoughtful and sound decision on this issue. If the Austinist would deign to contact Mr. Hudgins directly about the matter before dishing on him, you may have less to snark about but you’d better serve your readers and Texas film production.

Best regards,

Rodney Gibbs

TXMPA Board Member

Central Texas, At Large

Also, a lot of films set in Texas actually have to be filmed somewhere else because the state won't play ball, and places like NM get the work. I'm guessing it has more to do with money than taste or 'accuracy'.

For hypothetical reference, I give you Episode 130.

"I find nothing inappropriate about refusing to use Texas money to pay for a movie that inaccurately portrays Texas in a bad light."

I don't know where to begin. Maybe that subjective opinion has no place in determining what's eligible for funding that's, let's face it, in place to attract investment, not dust off our monuments of self-aggrandizement. Also, I wonder why you wouldn't support a film that questions your government or its actions. If it can't withstand scrutiny, should it exist?

I sat through Mel Gibson's Jesus snuff film, when almost none of that crap took place, at least not as it was (ostensibly 'accurately') portrayed.

Good art and good film exists in spite of the sentiments of dummies, not becasue of them.

The words "factual" and "film" should never appear together in any sentence.

Texas doesn't need a film to be portrayed in a bad light.

Sheesh. Another opportunity missed to skewer the Democrats. Way to go, Perry. This kind of buffoonery isn't going to win him his rental house in the general election. Does no one in his administration recognize that the Waco standoff was ENTIRELY managed by Clinton's federal organization?!? Duh!? This could have been held up as another example of federal meddling in Texas gone bad and supported Perry's secession efforts.

Seth

Wait, please. Nobody is saying the film cannot be made in Texas. TFC is not the art or the film police. Use of the word 'censorship' is not only inaccurate but it is also serious. Getting this incentive program up, funded, and running has been the labor of many years for many people in many places throughout Texas. It is hurtful to them--and incorrect--to suggest that the program is somehow politically skewed.

As a grantmaker--the incentive program functions exactly like a grantmaking program--it's entirely sensible to consider that the state has discretion over grantmaking funds. One applies for the incentive. There has been no revocation of incentive. The incentive is not automatic. This 'Waco' film couldn't have applied for the incentive yet; it's determined based on activity in the state that has been completed and paid out. To suggest that there has been a revocation of an incentive is also incorrect and unfair.

The incentive program is clear. You spend in Texas, you document this spend, it's verifiable, you may be eligible to receive a grant back. This program is much more effective than most because instead of a tax credit it is actual cash back to the production after production has concluded. The film has not been made--no incentive has been applied for--how can you say that an incentive has been somehow revoked?

Here's the Waco Tribune-Herald's article on the subject...which is a little more even about the matter. http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/05/19/05192009wacwacofilm.html

1. It's not censorship. No one is prohibiting the movie from being made. They're just refusing to pay for it. The artists' rights to self-expression have not been curtailed in any way.

2. We can't offer these incentives to everyone. Sooner or later someone was going to have to be denied. There needs to be a way to decide who gets them and who doesn't.

3. I find nothing inappropriate about refusing to use Texas money to pay for a movie that inaccurately portrays Texas in a bad light. It's our money, and we have the right to be a little discriminating about what it is spent on.

With all the efforts to get film incentives up to par in Texas, that's a quick way to shoot them down. Incentives are put into place to get money flowing through the state, and to help provide jobs for Texas workers, not to promote Texas.

Everyone in the world knows how great Texas is (whether they want to hear it, or not... or agree with it, or not), one film is not going to change that substantially. Denying Waco funding is a slippery slope to start, the next film could just mention Texas and be denied incentives... and the way the economy and film industry in TX is, now isn't the time to be choosy.

@C Landrum - that is actually something that popped into my head as well, but I don't think The Alamo, which was released in 2004, received incentive funding, seeing as House Bill 1634 wasn't passed until 2007. I have requested a list of all films that have received incentives from the TFC; hopefully they will get back to me.

But yeah, if The Alamo did receive funding of any kind, then I believe that sets a strong precedent for non-historically-accurate films getting the ducats from the guv's office.

Remember the Alamo (movie) . . . a masterpiece of historic narrative.