Trade Views

I moderated a panel discussion in Los Angeles last week on the role of government in the entertainment industry. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., was on the panel, which focused mostly on runaway production. Becerra believes that the federal government is aware of the importance of the entertainment industry and also is aware of many other countries attempting to create their own versions of "Hollywood" — and how that is not in the best interest of the United States.

He is well-spoken and knows the issues thoroughly. The problem is that his pleas fall on deaf ears in Washington and, it seems, in Sacramento and downtown Los Angeles as well. After listening to and questioning many such people during the past year, I think I finally figured out why.

Entertainment suffers from two very distinct and almost insurmountable problems. The first is that unless you are a working professional in the industry, you cannot understand it, and your perception of it is as distorted as one can imagine. The other issue is that entertainment is really two distinctly different industries. It can be summed up as those above the line and those below it. And too many people — including most politicians' constituents — focus only on the big names and big money. But the industry is really driven by the hundreds of thousands of people behind the scenes — American workers who stand to lose their livelihoods if production continues to go to other countries.

Oddly, the way the industry is perceived — glitz and glamour — is actually how it wants to be perceived. And while that can be good for the business, it can also be detrimental. The perception of the industry comes primarily from the media. And the media focuses on what people want to see and hear: the high-paid stars, the big-budget projects, the perks, the excesses, the egos and the personal lives of the celebrities.

The incredibly effective publicity departments in the major entertainment companies drive this to some extent: the interview shows on the networks, the junkets with the onscreen talent, the local media coverage, the magazine cover photos, the syndicated shows such as "Entertainment Tonight," "Access Hollywood" and "Extra."

What happens in publicity is part of the process and is mandatory, or the business could not survive. But at the same time, it makes it difficult for most politicians to go to the farm or factory belt and campaign for tax incentives for the entertainment business. All those constituents hear is that the $25 million-a-picture actor needs relief, that an industry made up of egotistical celebrities needs governmental assistance. Well, forget that. Politicians themselves need to understand that is not what is at stake. What is at stake is an American industry. Entertainment is one of only two American industries — along with the aircraft trade — that exports more than it imports, an industry under enormous worldwide competitive threats from piracy and quotas and an industry that has the power to influence culture in ways that no politician or statesman can.

The premieres, red-carpet receptions, parties and gala black-tie affairs are national obsessions. Everything is presented with high production values that serve to make the subject of entertainment even more enticing. In the end, it is all extremely effective and exciting and creates an enormous worldwide fascination and interest. That is its intention. That is why billions of dollars are spent each year on marketing major entertainment products.

Unfortunately, the message perceived by the audience is not always what was planned. Consumers see big money, unattainable lifestyles, personal excesses and overpaid people. More critical perceptions include frivolity, irresponsibility, out-of-control egos, waste and a preoccupation with sex and violence.

These are powerful images for a politician to campaign "against" when up for election, as they resonate with many citizens who assume the worst yet have no concept of what actually goes on inside the entertainment business. And they are impossible characteristics to "defend" when attempting to introduce legislation that could lead to tax incentives to keep production in this country or to develop remedies to fight foreign competition for thousands of production jobs.

It is an almost unavoidable dichotomy: The perception of the business, largely the result of the Hollywood PR machine, is not at all what the reality is. So advocating financial and legislative support for it is almost suicidal for politicians, yet it must be reconciled or the business is certain to ebb away to foreign competitors. The long-term effect of inaction will be felt for decades to come in the United States, and we will have let a true national treasure slip through our fingers.

This leads back to the second problem: that entertainment is actually two distinctly different industries. Those not working in the business focus only on the one they see and are unaware that the other exists. If they did see the "other" industry and what its role in entertainment is, I doubt that Hollywood would have a problem attracting support.

Everyone in the business knows the difference between above the line and below the line. Instead, think of it as the industry that is identified before the film begins and the industry that is identified after the film ends.

Before the film begins, everyone is in his or her seat, and there is a healthy anticipation. When the lights go down, the names the audience sees are the ones they recognize — the stars, the ones they came to see and experience. In some cases, the directors are recognized and, even less often, producers. Some composers have a following, as do a few cinematographers, but editors, production managers and casting directors? I hardly think so. Nevertheless, the names that drive attendance are shown before the film begins, number less than a dozen or so and effectively "are" the entertainment business to the audience. They are the people who are sought after for photo ops and autographs and generally represent the real essence of "Hollywood" to the entertainment consumer.

But to the people who count on the entertainment industry for their livelihood, stars are only a part of the business — admittedly, the most public, visible and sought-after part — but not the entire business. Outsiders don't know about that "other" industry — the one represented by all the people whose names appear "after" the film or program comes to an end. On television, their names rocket by at about 500 mph. In the movie business, these are the names that go by as theatergoers are pushing and shoving to get to their cars, to a dinner reservation or back home to free the baby sitter.

These names number not in the dozens but in the thousands. They are the people who physically make the movie, and unfortunately, no one knows who they are or precisely what they do. But it's clear to everyone in the business that they are the business.

Who cares about the second unit photographers? Then again, what exactly is a second unit? Who knows? Who cares? What about sound designers or model makers or all the people sitting at computers for months, if not years, designing 3-D animation? Or the carpenters and painters who make the sets that suspend disbelief or the caterers who feed the cast while they create? Or what about the next level of support personnel, those who never even see their company listed but provide services that are essential to the production of a film? The hotels, the cleaners, the all-night Kinko's, the restaurants, the police, security personnel and on and on and on.

Clearly, this is the reason it takes so long to show the names after the film is over. It requires an unimaginable number of people to produce a film. True, it is the stars who fill the seats, but it is the combination of truly gifted, unknown craft people who actually produce the film, that make it work. And the key word here is "produce."

Somehow, producing autos, chemicals, clothing or machine tools is understood by most people. Even if they don't know how it is done, the idea of producing a stable consumer product is somehow more acceptable to more people than filmmaking. If politicians campaign to assist any of those industries in some legislative way, voters don't ever question the people or process of producing the goods and services, even though they might not agree with the assistance.

It is different for the entertainment business. No one thinks about entertainment as a manufacturing business, but it is, and oddly, it is arguably the single most complicated and complex manufacturing business we have in our economy. Why? Simple: Every entertainment product is manufactured only once, and the producers either get it right or it may never even make it to the screen. Even then, its chance of success is so negligible that one could wonder why it's even done in the first place. An enormous team of craftspeople — having never been a team before or ever again — goes to a location they have never been to before, shoots a script that will change as it is being shot, takes an unpredictable length of time to shoot it and is totally dependent on weather, the health and competency of staff and countless other unforeseen obstacles. All the while they spend money at dizzying speeds, but they are being scrutinized by the media, the stockholders and the management responsible for that money. Do this once in a lifetime, and it might be a fun challenge that would make an interesting book. But try to do it every other week, and one might begin to see how complicated it is.

Few people are equipped to take on such a challenge, let alone create a product that audiences around the world will go to see and be so satisfied with that the art form will become part of their consciousness for many years. Those people who can do so live in the United States. Filmed entertainment is an American business. The craftspeople with the skills, the talents and the experience live here, and they work here. When a film "manufacturing" job is exported out of the United States, these are the people who suffer.

When the body politic convenes to ascertain whether the entertainment industry deserves financial and governmental support — as entertainment production receives throughout the rest of the world — it should focus less on the top-paid talent and focus on that "other" industry, the one that actually makes the product, the one that employs hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers. These are talented people who, when employed, influence the economies of their communities, which translates to a more robust economy everywhere.

It will take understanding and courage to stand up for entertainment. But if it is not forthcoming, this country will lose one of its greatest assets, and that will be a tragedy.