Posted on 06/05/2005 8:17:03 AM PDT by thenderson
CINDERELLA MAN
When Americans are unemployed, they put even more out of work to make this movie. The highly publicized film "Cinderella Man" opens June 3. It is a classic American story in every way, with one exception: where it was made. It was filmed in Toronto instead of the United States, using labor heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. How ironic that this story of a man literally fighting to provide for his family at the height of the Depression should be filmed in a foreign country, costing America hundreds of middle-class jobs and contributing to the dangerous trade imbalance which now deeply concerns our economic experts.
James J. Braddock, the "Cinderella Man," was born in New York City to Irish immigrant parents. His is a real-life "Rocky" story. He was a poor local boxer struggling to support his family when, fighting as a ten-to-one underdog, he defeated Max Baer to become the heavyweight champion of the world in 1935. Seventy years later, the crowds cheering him on to victory in the film about his life are no longer Americans because the background artists portraying them are Canadians, as is the overwhelming majority of people employed in the making of this movie. Material that should be triumphantly American is counterfeit, a cheap and tawdry imitation of who we are.
In recent years millions of American jobs have been outsourced overseas to take advantage of lower labor rates. However, Canada and Australia, where "Superman" is now being filmed, are hardly third world nations. Unlike other industries, in the case of film and television production labor costs are made artificially lower in these and other countries by government subsidies which violate our trade agreements.
When 28 members of Congress sent a letter of protest over the choice to film James Braddock's story in Canada, the studios which produced "Cinderella Man" claimed they went to Toronto because it was the only place that had the right architecture. That's a lame excuse for a purely monetary decision. Plenty of cities in the United States still have buildings with the historically correct "look" for this picture. The studios went to Canada because one third of their labor costs were kicked back by the government, pure and simple.
The outsourcing of this and other productions in order to take advantage of illegal subsidies offered by foreign governments is more than just a moral and patriotic outrage. It doesn't only cost American jobs. It is also a very real threat to the economic stability of the United States. The filming of American movies and TV shows in foreign countries contributes to our ballooning trade deficit and the devaluation of our dollar against other currencies. As a result, outsourced production harms every single American citizen in a very real way.
Like the great champion James Braddock, you have the power to fight back. Send a message that the outsourcing of his story is not acceptable to Americans.
Send a personal message directly to the people responsible for the decision to take the production of this most American story and the many jobs it generated to a completely foreign country by writing the producers of "Cinderella Man:"
Brian Grazer Ron Howard Imagine Entertainment 9465 Wilshire Blvd., 7th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Fax: 310-858-2020 Phone: 310-858-2000
Bob Weinstein Harvey Weinstein Miramax 375 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10013 Fax: 212-941-3949 Phone: 212-941-3800
Ron Meyer Universal Pictures 100 Universal City Plaza Universal City, CA 91608 Fax: 818-777-2500 Phone: 818-777-1000
Penny Marshall Parkway Productions 7150 La Presa Drive Los Angeles, CA 90068 Fax: 323-874-3124 Phone: 323-874-6207 ...........................................................................................................................
Look, I'll believe you when you say he said that, but it was either a throwawy remark or something he said to be PC. A major Hollywood production with a major director can do just about anything it wants, anywhere. And weapons on movie sets are strictly controlled and inventoried, for full accountability. Especially on movies that have endless weapons.
Terrific movie, wasn't it?
As to my being angry.... I am not so much angry as dogged-ass obsessed about making this movie, in spite of the tremendous obstacles.
Making a movie, ANY MOVIE, is a war. You are fighting everyone and everything. You are fighting for money. You are fighting governments, unions, no-talent meddlers, lawyers, logistics, insurance companies, egos, equipment, crew, actors, schedules, the weather and everyone's doubt and fear of failure....and all of that, even if you have a very strong script and good people participating.
Even the successful blockbusters we see and think were "inevitable" were precarious propositions until the bitter end as a multitude of impossible obstacles were fought and defeated, in turn.
It's a miracle that ANY movies actually get made when you consider the chaos and impediments inherent in the process.
I dont think any of Star Wars was filmed in Hollywood...most in Australia and England.
And, it's a miracle when anything GOOD happens to emerge.
I always thought moviemaking was like New York City: It's not a wonder that so much goes wrong there, it's a wonder that anything ever goes right.
And (knowing the dysfunctional process), it's not a wonder that so many bad movies are made, it's a wonder that any good ones are ever made at all.
pump and bookmark.
Got some calls to make tomorrow!
So are you knuckling under to the corrupt union thugs, or are you taking a stand and hiring only free people?
Sounds like he is making a non union film.
They've been shooting movies and TV shows in Canada and pretending they are in the US for at least twenty years now. Toronto very often stands in for NYC. Even if a film has some scenes in the actual US city in question, much of the non-landmark stuff will be shot across the border.
As for unions, many of the major studios have been going non-union for all intents and purposes for many years, too. Disney and Lucas especially. They also go to Mexico a lot, for the same reasons.
Most of the cost of making a movie for the last thirty years has be a) stars b) advertising. But the producers would rather put their money there than into the labor of the film.
The unions are certainly at fault--especially the teamsters. But compared to the way A List talent prices have soared, it's chickenfeed.
Could be. Like I said, this was years ago, and not being a 'movie buff,' I read the article in passing.
I believe my thought was, 'well, boys, be careful what you wish for...'
I'm not knuckling under to anyone.
As far as I know, I'm the only dumb-ass to even try to make an independent Western outside the established "system."
Nobody in Hollywood thinks there is even a market for Western movies anymore.
Thank you for your substantive comment, but, I didn't write it. It's a flyer that's being handed out in Jersey City (in the NYC area).
I just thought that it was ironic that the ultra-rich film moguls -- who always seem to support tax and spend candidates -- don't mind a little union busting to make a couple of extra dollars out of a film.
Look what the top stars make. Look what the studio executives make. They really need to cut costs at the level of the US hourly worker?
Good for you! And after the (relative) success of Unforgiven, Open Range, Silverado and the like, I don't see how it can be said there isn't a market for good Westerns.
"Thank you for your substantive comment,"
Irony, right?
"but, I didn't write it. It's a flyer that's being handed out in Jersey City (in the NYC area)."
Friend, you should have told us that. If you did, and I missed, my bad reading.
"I just thought that it was ironic that the ultra-rich film moguls -- who always seem to support tax and spend candidates -- don't mind a little union busting to make a couple of extra dollars out of a film."
They're not union busters at all. They're in unions. And the craft unions would never demand that a star not cross a line...because they do make movies in Hollywood, and their members do work on those.
I have no sympathy for unions, especially Hollywood unions--and I'm a member of one.
"Look what the top stars make. Look what the studio executives make. They really need to cut costs at the level of the US hourly worker?"
I don't know what you're saying here--that Tom Cruise should be working for $19 an hour?
It doesn't work that way. It's a rarefied field, with only a relative handful of stars that can put fannies in the seats. It's not like injection molding, say, or driving a cab, where the operators are interchangeable by the thousands.
Okay, now I'm waiting for people to step up and say, I could do what Russell Crowe does--for HALF the money!
Thing about Hollywood...when they hire above-the-line talent, it is NEVER about the money. If they want Tom Cruise, and he'll do it for $20 million, it's not like Val Kilmer can step in and say, I'll do it for $5 million and the execs will jump up and say, We just saved $15 million!
No, they'll say, Crap, we just lost Tom Cruise.
"I just thought that it was ironic that the ultra-rich film moguls -- who always seem to support tax and spend candidates -- don't mind a little union busting to make a couple of extra dollars out of a film."
"They're not union busters at all. They're in unions. And the craft unions would never demand that a star not cross a line...because they do make movies in Hollywood, and their members do work on those. "
The Hollywood moguls are in Unions? I guess Barbara Streisand has a union card somewhereorother, but what does that prove? The US workers that are losing out are cooks, carpenters, electricians, florists, tailors, . . . -- and the local businesses that they patronize.
"Look what the top stars make. Look what the studio executives make. They really need to cut costs at the level of the US hourly worker?"
"I don't know what you're saying here--that Tom Cruise should be working for $19 an hour?"
No, I'm saying that if a star is getting paid $15 million, it's despicable to go overseas to make a film to save a couple of million. I don't see any difference between this and someone renouncing US citizenship to save on taxes.
I copied the text and looked without luck for the name of the author or the organization. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear. The flier's been making the rounds for at least a couple of weeks.
No, that's just smart business. Also, over 50% of revenue from movies comes from overseas. Hollywood movies are big everywhere (except North Korea). If some films are made elsewhere, so what? It's a free market.
What's hypocritical is when these practioners of the free market on a global level fund US candidates who think that they are IN NORTH KOREA!!! The small businessman and/or property owner can't outsource to escape these leeches -- who are backed by those who CAN and DO outsource!
When you compared an actor showing up on a set that happens to be in a foreign country to people who are "renouncing US citizenship to save on taxes," I realized you were operating from another universe, and not necessarily a parallel one.
I can answer everything, but it's a waste of my time.
You simply don't know how any of this works.
The big bucks prima donna ain't the question. The question is whether the THOUSANDS of support workers -- AND WHERE THEY SPEND THEIR MONEY -- are going to be USA or some country that's main export seems to be criticism of the US.
I'm glad somebody see the point. These guys want taxes and regulations for the middle class, but free markets for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.