Alaska missing the boat on films

If you are wondering what Alaska is missing since it closed its film office and ended the movie subsidy program, take a look at what is happening in Georgia.

The Peach State has had a subsidy program since 2002. It offers companies shooting films there about $500 million a year in tax credits and, in return, the moviemakers employ 92,000 people and last year had $9.5 billion in economic impact on that state.

Since Alaska’s corporate taxes are considerably lower than Georgia’s, that tax burden would have been much lower here if we still had a subsidy program, making Alaska an even more attractive shooting location.

Alaska could be almost literally rolling in movie dough if our political leaders hadn’t been so short-sighted as to kill the film program in 2016. At that time the annual Alaska Film Office costs were $346,700 a year, which covered the salaries and expenses of three people and we were offering $20 million a year in tax subsidies.

Georgia’s film subsidy program is in the news these days because the state has adopted an abortion law that will effectively ban many women from ending unwanted pregnancies. In May, the state’s governor signed a new “heartbeat” law that disallows abortions after the fetus has been growing in the womb for six weeks.

Since many women don’t know they are pregnant until the fetus is six weeks along, the law makes many abortions impossible. Alaska was one of the first states to adopt an abortion law allowing women to choose whether or not to allow unwanted pregnancies to proceed, so Georgia’s problem would not apply here.

The film industry, in which professional women hold great sway, is rebelling and starting to cancel projects scheduled for filming in Georgia. Among the projects to get axed is a new dramatic series called The Power, scheduled to be shot by Amazon Studios. It was adapted from a novel by Naomi Alderman and features young women who suddenly develop the power to release electric jolts from their fingers. The project was in its early stages and the director was preparing to fly to Georgia to scout locations. That particular project might not have transferred well to Alaska, but many film projects would benefit from having this state’s incredible attractions as a backdrop.

The fact that Georgia was getting $9.5 billion in annual economic income and 92,000 jobs deserves close attention from Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Alaska’s legislators. Alaska has great potential because it is a more attractive location for many movies than is Georgia and other states, even California.

That is because Alaska’s incredible scenery, expansive wilderness and wild creatures inevitably become featured in movies made here. They are too attractive to ignore and add valuable color to movie settings. Its basic appeal is unmatched in the country — and in some respects anywhere in the world.

One added and very large benefit from movies shot here is that they bring tourists to Alaska, potentially thousands of them, and tourists spend money, lots of money.

The outlay for the Alaska Film Office and the subsidies was a minimal expense. One of its many benefits was in developing a support industry here with experience and talents that enabled people with such talents to be recruited for jobs throughout the country. Alaska people were winning paychecks both here and on movie locations far beyond our state’s far-flung borders.

Those who came to Alaska for the filming — and those who came here because they were attracted by scenes from movies shot here — spent lots of money at hotels, restaurants, stores, aircraft charter offices and a whole lot more.

It is not too late to get Alaska back into the film industry. What is needed to get started is for our governor or one of our legislative leaders to propose bringing back the Alaska Film Office and the film subsidy program.

There is a lot at stake in this deal and Alaska has a lot going for it. We need to get going on it.