California’s post-production workers push for new industry incentive

For 45 years, Alyson Dee Moore made the sounds that movies needed — the footsteps, the rustling clothes and doors swinging shut.

This year, for the first time, the Foley artist who worked on blockbuster movies such as “Frozen,” “Interstellar” and “The Dark Knight” did not have enough hours to qualify for her union healthcare. She retired from her job at Warner Bros., where she has worked for 27 years.

“My decision to retire was out of need versus out of wanting to,” said Dee Moore, 65. “I didn’t have any income coming in, so at least I could get my pension from the union and my healthcare and collect Social Security.”

Dee Moore, a member of the Motion Picture Editors Guild for 21 years, is one of thousands of California workers on the back end of film and television production — sound mixers, composers, visual effects artists — watching their corner of the industry hollow out. As Hollywood productions chase tax credits to other states and countries, the post-production work is going with them.

Now the industry is asking Sacramento for a credit of its own. AB 2319, written by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would create a tax incentive aimed specifically at post-production work. It cleared the Senate’s appropriations committee this month and heads to a Senate vote. Its backers are seeking $100 million in annual funding. The bill would allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses relating specifically to post-production in California.

Most Foley work, Dee Moore said, has moved to non-union studios and overseas.

“[Warner Bros.] outsources their Foley television fully; their feature [films] are not done on the lot,” she said. “We did do ‘Sinners,’ but that was like the last big film we did. I didn’t really see them keeping things on the lot.”

The numbers track her experience. The state’s share of U.S. post-production employment has dropped from 53% to 42% over the last 13 years, according to CVL Economics, whose founder helped start the trade group sponsoring the bill. California generated about 12,000 post-production jobs last year.

AB 2319 is sponsored by the California Post Alliance and the Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 700. Its advocates concede the timing is difficult.

“The truth is that it is a difficult year for a budget request because of things that are happening at a federal level. It’s putting a lot of pressure on the state budget,” said Marielle Abaunza, the president of the alliance. “We’ve been really trying to illustrate that this tax incentive is not a burden on the state. It’s an investment.”

The contraction isn’t just reaching workers at the end of long careers.

Austin Scott moved to Los Angeles from Florida in 2004, with dreams of acting. He soon found work editing reality TV shows such as “Master Chef,” “Dancing with the Stars” and “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City.” During the height of his career, he earned between $160,000 and $250,000 a year. But in the last three years, the Altadena resident hasn’t been able to find a steady job in post-production. He now works as a muralist and is making less than $50,000 annually.

“This is where [the industry] always has been, and always I thought it would be. But now the big question in the air is whether this is even a viable industry to work in anymore,” Scott, 41, said. “This is the worst it’s ever been by far.”

The work is going to the U.K., Europe and Canada, said Adam Fowler, an economist and founding member of the alliance. The U.S. competes at a disadvantage because it has no federal film and TV incentives, he said.

“It’s essential right now to stop the bleeding because there’s been a lot of transition and a lot of really aggressive policy changes around the globe that have really displaced a lot of workers in California, and without other solutions handy, we know this one works,” Fowler said. “It incentivizes the activity.”

Schultz argues the appeal of a post-production credit is that it does not require the project to shoot in California.

“You’re going to have some content that is produced elsewhere, whether it’s because of tax incentives elsewhere, or stylistic or artistic choices that are made in terms of” shooting locations, Schultz said. “But we can still bring the sound mixing, the editing, the scoring, the visual effects — all of those incredible job opportunities to California.”

Whether that money will buy new jobs or subsidize existing ones is the open question, said Patrick Button, a film and TV tax incentives skeptic and professor of economics at Tulane University.

“There’s going to be a lot of cases where the post-production was going to happen in California anyway. But now they can just take advantage of the tax credit,” Button said. “Now that would maybe incentivize them to spend a little bit more on post-production and maybe hire an extra person or so. But generally that’s not going to change economic behavior.”

A credit aimed narrowly at post-production work currently being done elsewhere would be more effective, Button said.

California expanded its film and TV tax credit program last year, more than doubling the old $330-million cap to $750 million through June 30, 2030. That program also applies to post-production, but only if 75% of filming or the overall budget is spent in the state. There is currently no standalone carve-out for post-production work alone.

Dee Moore, for her part, is still hopeful the work will eventually return.

“It will come back because of the history. You have so much talent here, and I’m hoping that that’s really what it comes back to,” she said. “The pendulum swung the other way to budget versus talent, and there’s a middle ground to be found where you can still have the talent and the budget.”