...and I don't think Melbourne could pass for it. This is part of the reasons and rationale Australian director Alex Proyas had for filming the latest Nicolas Cage cinema triumph in Melbourne as opposed to Boston where the story is set.
Now he's leading the fight to redefine the amount of "tax offset" (tax breaks in US-speak) films made in Australia receive. Knowing, which was classified as a "runaway [Hollywood] production" received 15%. An Australian film by comparison receives a 40% tax break*.
* Boston, Massachusetts offered the film a 35% tax break to shoot there.
Proyas's view is that despite an American setting and star, the film is de facto Australian since "all the money has flowed back to [Australia.]
He hopes to make the 40% tax break across the board.
You can read the full article in "Today's" (as in Thursday) Sydney Morning Herald.
All the nonsense about Boston aside, I support the two-tier system. The fact of the matter is that most Australian films (in the sense of those whose creation and/or adaptation began in Australia) start out with a bit of a financial disadvantage than films whose creation/adaptation began elsewhere (Europe, Asia, North America). In order to both grow and maintain the Australian movie industry, it needs to both entice overseas productions to shoot in Australia while also providing a hospitable environment to nuture original Australian films.
Perhaps adjust the rates so that the difference isn't so huge, but keep the tiers. It's only fair, as I see it.
1 comment:
is the movie supposed to be set in boston? i don't have that impression. anyway, as long as i can't tell where a movie was shot, i don't really care where the filming took place.
Post a Comment