When a film or television production arrives in a community, elected officials often promise jobs, tourism and new investment. States compete for that business by offering tax breaks, financial incentives, public land and other forms of support.
But who actually benefits when Hollywood comes to town?
Curtis Marez, a professor at the University of California San Diego Department of Ethnic Studies, studies the economic, racial and political consequences of producing film and television outside Hollywood. His work examines what happens when productions move into lower-income areas of the United States and how the realities behind the camera sometimes register — directly or symbolically — onscreen.
Marez, who is the author of Producing Precarity: The Costs of Making TV in Poor Places, said the promise that film productions will create broad local prosperity is only partly borne out. “They don’t really hire a lot of local people in skilled production roles,” he said. “Instead, many of the jobs that reach local residents are service positions, such as hotel room cleaners” — work he described as often “low-wage, gendered and racialized.” Drawing on economists who have studied film incentive programs, Marez argues that public funds could often produce greater benefits if they were invested directly in education, health care and other social services.
Ahead of this year’s Emmy Awards on Sept. 14, Marez discussed what four nominated shows — Widow’s Bay, Pluribus, DTF St. Louis and Beef — reveal about Hollywood’s effect on the places where television is made. “These are good shows, and viewers can appreciate what they accomplish onscreen,” Marez said. “I’m offering a critical interpretation of the whole package — not just what’s on the screen, but how it was made." To fans, he says, “Don’t get mad at me. I f I were just reading them in isolation, I would think, ‘Wow, that’s great,’” he said. “But there’s this whole other side of how the production was made.”