"I said I liked it, I didn't say I wanted to kiss it.”—Gloria Grahame to Humphrey Bogart, In a Lonely Place

Seattle is a hot place. Just look around: movies ( Sleepless in Seattle), television ( Frasier), music (grunge), fashion (high-priced grunge); even phone company commercials all want in on the city-of-the-month popularity of Seattle. In the process, a lot of production companies make a lot of money exploiting a city that the majority of them never set foot in.

Entertainment production is big business everywhere you go, and the kind of dollars generated by film and television production is unmatchable. No longer the exclusive domain of Hollywood back lots, film and video production has taken its act on the road to locations around the country and around the world. This clean, environment-friendly business can, by industry figures, manufacture three dollars of local economic activity for every one dollar spent on location. Some industry insiders put the ratio even higher when they take the multiplier effect to its furthest, and logical, conclusion. Consider the support services, the crews, the talent, the permits, the food service, the security, the hospitality, the physical production, the developing, the editing, the distribution, the gift buying, the theater operation, babysitters, the cost of a $7.50 tickets, and many people feel the dollar ratio shoots up to 11 to 1.

"It's a green industry, it's clean, it's got a high multiplier effect on the economy, it attracts an intelligent, capable, responsible group of people as a rule. It provides employment in a burgeoning area-entertainment is continuing to grow-and finally just look at the numbers," urges Seattle-based producer Rick Stevenson (Some Girls, Crooked Hearts, Promised Land) when he talks about the value of this kind of economy. But why then is Washington state , and Seattle in particular, missing out on the big dollar rewards of film location production if this city is such a big draw?

It's easy to criticize: Leslie Lytel of the Wsahington State Film and Video Office.

Consider: in 1993 the amount of direct spending of major productions filmed in Washington state by out-of-state film companies, ie . the dollars left in state, equaled $40,200,000. By comparison, direct cash spent in the state of Illinois (long recognized as one of the leading states for location filming) equaled $115,556,011. And in the region Washington seems most in competition with, British Columbia, $285,965,000 (Canadian dollars) total monies were spent. These figures have no multiplier extensions attached to them, and represent direct production dollars spent split between feature films and television series, pilots, and movies. While different states track their numbers differently and may or may not include dollars from such things as commercials, music videos, industrials, documentaries or independent production, one comparison does merit scrutiny: in 1993, 26 features were shot in British Columbia; 19 in Illinois; four in Washington state ; three in Oregon. So why does this highly profitable business go to British Columbia six times more often than it goes to Washington state?

Suzy Kellett , director of the Illinois Film Office, evaluates her experience of losing films to Toronto by saying "It's totally a money thing. It's the exchange rate which is now at what, 25 or 30%? This happened five or six years ago and had a driving impact, and now it's back. There are producers who feel American products should be made in the states, but there are many who, when you can save 30% of your budget by walking across the border, that's where you're going to go. I look at Seattle--Vancouver is the hot spot and Washington takes the hit. I don't know another city like Seattle... except Vancouver, and then Seattle is doomed."

Is Washington populated by so many California-haters that they cut off their nose to spite their face with this California-driven commerce? Is Washington the environ-mentally-aware Greta Garbo of location spots, insisting they "just want to be left alone?" Why is this state missing the value of this booming industry?

Historically, state film offices or commissions have been the vanguard to enticing out-of-state production companies to consider location shooting in their individual states. Their success is directly related to their reputation of delivering what they promise; their ability to actively and aggressively pursue the market; and the level of support they both give to and receive from their local film community. "This is show business, it ain't show art," declares Mark DesRochers of the British Columbia Film Commission. For these offices the glamour is off, this is a very real business bringing hard dollars into economies. "While there is this perception that we sit in hot tubs and do lunch, it is a very real, very tough, very sophisticated fast moving business," cautions David Woolson , executive director of the Film and Video Office in Oregon. "What we've tried to do is take the stars out of people's eyes, really look at it as a business, and deal with it as such."

While the Washington State Film and Video Office has similar philosophies, they appear to be constricted in their abilities to perform their mandate by a number of factors-not the least of which is their absurdly low budget. The Seattle-based office has a staff of three and a biennial budget of $220,000, which is expected to pay for all salaries, fifteen file cabinets worth of location photos from around the state, all copies and reprints of files as they are requested, as well as the associated costs of sending them out, all scouting trips and trade shows, and all promotional material. By way of comparison, the Illinois Film Office has a staff of eight and a state-funded budget of $500,000 annually. Although there is no advertising money (that is a separate line item on their budget which hasn't been funded in quite a while), they sell by their work and reputation. And in fact, every dollar their office spends brings back 250 dollars in production. In the northwest, the only office that can come close to that sort of financial support is the Oregon office. They have four staff people: two project managers and an administrator in addition to the executive director. Their $800,000 biennial budget is lottery funded: all of Oregon's economic development monies went from general fund in tax dollars to lottery in the last biennium, a move which gave the film office a $150,000 marketing budget for the first time. This marketing tool has been very effective in getting the word out that Oregon is a growing production center. The remarkable lack of funding for Washington has to inhibit their ability to actively and aggressively pursue the film production market.

Seattle's reputation for delivering top-quality film production has not gone untarnished. The level of local support service available has continually ebbed and flowed, as talented below-the-line craftspeople have moved in and out of the area looking for work. Rumors floated down to production companies in Hollywood about the lack of cooperation from local unions, and the relatively high cost of doing business with them. Obtaining permits and zoning requirements was time-consuming, and local businesses had a tendency to bad-mouth the California companies. Unit Publicist Rob Harris, whose resume includes Singles, Black Widow, Shoot To Kill, The Babe, and the currently shooting Cobb with Tommy Lee Jones, defined the problems of shooting in Seattle this way: "The criticisms were two fold, one of which I think has been corrected. There was no one-stop shopping, no single process for permits. You had to go to several different agencies in order to get parking from one, zone variances from another. I think that's been, to a degree, corrected (by the establishment of the Seattle Film and Video office). I think that if anything can be said critically of the Washington State Film Commission, it is that they fail to exploit, or to bring attention to, the talent pool that they have.

The Washington Film and Video office has been scrutinized and criticized by both film industry people who admire the work of the staff and those who feel the office is sorely lacking in aggressive professionalism. Barry Stern (co-founder of the Pacific Northwest Studio, a high-profile California-style studio which operated out of Fremont in 1986-87) believes "they (the state) still don't know how to bring work into this area, and they are still working with amateurs." His philosophy of courting Hollywood business is contained in his only partially tongue-in-cheek quote-"You've got to make producers think you're willing to do unnatural acts for them." Other sources, who have asked not to be identified (ALL work in the film industry is based on personal reputation and many people worry about being openly quoted) but who include below-the-line management, disagree. "I think the two major departments a film commission can benefit from making friends with are locations and publicity," cites one such source. I think the mistake that certain people in the Washington office make is that they suck up to the producers and the directors who will basically make one film there, but it makes the Film Office feel important to be able to have lunch with these guys. There are things that don't cost much that could be done, but it depends on your orientation. If your orientation is being buddies with producer in the hopes that they will spread the word to another producer, there is a minimal benefit derived. If your efforts are toward the below-the-line-people, they have a surprisingly significant impact on where movies are made. Locations, publicists, and UPM's are more influential, in determining where movies are made than producer or director.

Seattle producer Rick Stevenson: My first allegiance is to the movie.

Still, many industry insider believe no one could operate effectively with the conditions under which the Washington office works. Suzy Kellett of the Illinois office, in talking about what the Washington commission needs to survive says, "My feeling now is hire the right people, and you have got to fund them. Then give them what they need to compete. Otherwise, don't get in this game. It's too competitive. It's a crime; don't set up an office and then handicap them. Give them what they need." David Woolson of the Oregon office is equally firm about the importance of the industry. "It's not just a fun little exercise with people with cameras. In light of the northwest economy, as a whole, changing from a natural resource economy, we need to look aggressively at emerging opportunities and businesses, and I'm convinced film is one."

Some filmmakers have enjoyed their time shooting in Seattle so much they make a concerted effort to return to film again. Cameron Crowe shot both Say Anything and Singles in Seattle, and while he realized a few minor problems with the city officials, Crowe feels someone from his crew wisely kept those problems from him so that his memory of the experience was, and continues to be, a good one. "I will shoot in Seattle again," he said from his office in Santa Monica. "It's always difficult to film, no matter who you are or where you are. I wouldn't film in Vancouver because it feels too clean, it's too much like a movie set. It feels like you're on the Universal tour."

Producer Rick Stevenson would love to stay home and make his films in Seattle. "My desire is that Seattle could become more and more competitive. Seattle's biggest problem is nothing inherent in itself it's Vancouver. It's just cheaper and easier. Specifically, on this film which I'm about to direct-a five million dollar, independent, negative pick-up from, Columbia/Tri Star--we were able to add another 15% on the budget by going through a Vancouver company that's tapping into all the government tax sources. Seattle has nothing like that because Washington state has not recognized, fully, the benefits of having film here. Despite some pretty incredible efforts by Christine Lewis and Leslie Lytel , (of the Washington Film and Video Office), both of whom I have a lot of respect for. I think they do a lot with nothing."

"The main reason I went up there with Artic Blue (shot in Vancouver during the summer of 1993, starring Rutger Hauer )," continues Stevenson, "is that Vancouver provided 40 percent of the budget. Out of the government. The provincial government. It's something called the BC Trade Incentive Program. Where BC Trade, which is their provincial export corporation, started to look at the film industry as this pollution-free, high multiplier effect investment. Where, and this is a great idea but they haven't really executed it right yet, this is their philosophy: if a film-maker brings 60% of the budget from some source, and pledges to spend 90'/6 of the budget in British Columbia or wherever this may be, what the trade corporation will do is guarantee up to 40'0 of the budget against a bank loan and hold some rights against that. But even if those rights don't turn out in the end, the money that is spent in the province and the multiplier effect that occur ...say your film is six million dollars and BC trade puts in two million.  The multiplier effect says that's worth twenty to thirty million dollars of economic activity-all of which creates tax money, all of which more than cover the two million if in the worn case scenario they lose. Plus they get a fat fee-it's expensive money.

Other production companies involved in shooting projects which are set in Seattle but are being filmed elsewhere have not been willing to talk about their location choices. Christine Lewis of the Washington Film and Video Office mentions both Mystery Dance and Medicine Ball as films which, although originally set in Seattle , have chosen to film in Portland. And Mark DesRochers from the BC Film Commission, who assisted Rick Stevenson with the unique financial incentives for Artic Blue, denies the existence of that particular opportunity. He will say the trade board is revenue generating, but insists "we're not giving away $100 bills at the border. There are no financial incentives. No freebies. No handouts."

Answers to the dilemma of wooing Hollywood abound. Leslie Lytel of the Washington office has several comments for those who would criticize the commission's work. "I think it's our responsibility to be receptive and responsive to comments. On the other hand, I think it's really easy for people to go around complaining about a state agency, whatever that state agency is. I think it's important that people at least be constructive in a way that can improve our services. I don't think we're above criticism. But we make ourselves available to people in whatever way we can. Anybody who has questions or concerns can relate those concerns about what we are doing. Last year we had a survey-we had received a lot of criticism from people thinking we weren't adequately doing our job, so on our hotline we asked for anonymous comments. We got two. Our mission is to bring business here. (Yet) we don't really have a budget to be too aggressive, to go out and solicit business.

Vancouver has financial incentives; crews six to eight deep for film alone and 20 deep for film and television productions combined; a council of unions to encourage cooperation and compromise; studio facilities; numerous looks and beautiful surroundings; long experience and a solid reputation. Seattle is one of the hottest cities in the nation, but as a film center it has a frontier attitude which makes it a less than comfortable place to work for most film companies. Do producers, especially local ones, have a responsibility to shoot here? "I'd love to be able to use Seattle and Vancouver crews and talent and everything," says Rick Stevenson. "I think that is the dream to pursue, far more then the fairly elusive dream of going out and getting a lot of work for Seattle. You might get it one year, but until Seattle effectively can be in a position to compete, it'll never become a film center. When it comes to putting on my producer hat and deciding where I'm going to film, even though I'm a Seattleite and a confirmed American, my first allegiance without a doubt is to that movie. To make it the best possible, to get the most dollars on screen, I'll go anywhere to make that happen." MM