Behind the Scenes 
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Bob Hudgins talks to Katy Vine about the “Waco” controversy, tax incentives, and how to get your movie made in Texas.
Steve says: Let’s focus on the fact that incentives got passed and then maybe work on other aspects; clauses and what not, once we successfully proven to the citizen’s of our great State that Bob and many others like ourselves that this was good legislation. If you want to talk about it futher please feel free to contact me. Thanks Steve White Stevetxcz@aol.com (July 19th, 2009 at 9:37pm)
(Page 3 of 3)
No, I mean I have to say the other project I ran my due diligence on was a film called “Tulia” (read an excerpt from Nate Blakeslee’s book). That was the first one I ran the traps on. So “Tulia” came through first and it was my first test of this provision. A lot of the story and the script was based on court exchanges. I did Internet research and it was verbatim. Next, I contacted the lawyer. This is going to be Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton. John Singleton wrote the script. And I got [the lawyer] the story. He was well aware of it. He had interviewed them extensively and gave his thumbs up. Then I went to law enforcement and found out about the portrayal of the rogue cop and it was, well, we don’t like it but it’s accurate. So I got the thumbs up. Unfortunately, Halle Berry got pregnant so it never came to the point of me saying, you guys can come. I know their problem was our incentive was five percent versus Louisiana’s 25 percent. They were probably still going to go to Louisiana even though we said we’d love to have it. When you go historic on me, that’s going to be a little more difficult in some ways and easier in some way because we don’t have anybody alive who will come back after they’ve seen the movie and say, that’s not what happened. At some point I’m going to have to do historic research on some project and find out about some guy who died hundreds of years ago and was he a real scoundrel or not. But for works of fiction I have no problem.
As long as they stick with the original idea, right? If they have an R-Rated movie and the community says we’re good with that. No problem?
We’re not saying no to anybody except projects that are trying to portray what they’re saying as factual events but are in fact not factually portraying events as they happened. Some people are offended by certain things, other people are offended by other things. I could make an argument for everything being turned down if it were an arbitrary thing based on somebody not liking that movie. I wish “Tulia” had been made so I could say, look at this great movie. I said yes to Tulia. And that’s an unfortunate part of Texas history. But it’s true. We can live with truth. Yes we have scoundrels.
So let’s say somebody writes a script about something, for example a narrative feature about the El Paso border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. They were accused of shooting a drug smuggler in the back as he ran away, then they covered up the shooting. A federal jury found them in the wrong. Many people saw them as heroes. In the end, President Bush commuted their sentences. So if this script comes into your office and makes the Texas border patrol agents look bad, agreeing with the jury and not with Bush, with whom do you side with regard to the “truth”?
Nightmare. I would have to do due diligence.
And by that you mean what?
I’d get in touch with all the different people involved. The script is going to drive me to certain people. I don’t know much about the incident you’ve raised but I’d do my homework. I wouldn’t say, oh this sounds bad to me. No, I’d dig in, use the resources I have to get to the people involved.
And is the Legislature giving you resources? This is going to take a lot of time for you to be a state fact-checker. Do you get assistance?
We’re funded to administer the program but from my point of view it’s part of the program. Like the locations. There are things we do to facilitate the incentive program that are part of the job. As these things come up I will do whatever it takes to get to that determination.
Are there other states that do this?
The only other state that has something similar is Utah and they’re a lot more broad based in what they can say no to. I’m relieved I have this legal determination I can fall back on that is so specific. Theirs is much broader. They recently turned one down because there was bestiality. Not that I’ve said yes to bestiality! But I believe it was a fictitious story and they turned the project down. Funny thing is, they still made movie in Utah.
Let’s say you get a documentary that is pretty one-sided in its interviews. Do you tell them, you have to change X, Y, Z and fix that or you don’t get any incentives?
They would probably just get a no. We haven’t had anything that has required that kind of a determination.
But with “Waco,” let’s say they had come back and said, “What do we need to do?”
To work, they can come and we’d work with them in every way.
But to get incentives.
They’d have to apply and we’d make that determination. I would ask for a new script. I’d try and start with a blank page. I would do my best to be objective. I’m not going to pre-judge any project.
But if they don’t know what the problem is…
It has been well-documented. Mr. Wainwright is very clear on why this project was not going to be accepted into the program.
Right. But for other programs going forward, if somebody got a no and wanted the incentives. Let’s say they don’t have money to travel. There’s a small budget. Can they ask what the problems were?
Absolutely. This is a fluid conversation. From my point of view this is the slippery slope. I don’t want to be the censor.
That’s inevitable, though, isn’t it?
To date it hasn’t had to happen. The reality is all these stories are fiction. That’s the thing. Ninety-nine percent of the projects that come through this office are fictionally based and as long as they’re fictitious characters, even “based on” would get passed because they’re not portraying it as a factual event. That’s where the rigidity of that project being unapologetically, no, this is how it happened. That’s great, but there are people who were there who said, that is not how it actually happened. So I’m sorry. Yes, if they wanted to change the script and if they wanted to come back and reapply and have it be a “based on” or some “names have been changed,” then that would be a reconsideration.
What about “The Alamo”?
The provision is very clear. We weren’t Texas at that point. So I would have to say yes to any Alamo story.
What about features that are entirely fictional, like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”? Do those not count as depicting Texans in a bad light?
That wouldn’t count because it’s “based on.” That is the biggest disclaimer ever. “Based on” means we took incredible liberty.
What about a fictional feature that makes it appear as if Texas politics is corrupt? Something that generic would not be a problem?
Would not. I would not feel compelled to say no to that. Because it’s a fictitious account. One of the more challenging questions I was asked was, what about “JFK,” the Oliver Stone film? By all accounts there was a lot of license taken. I would have to say “JFK” would probably not be problematic.
Why?
Because there wasn’t this, you know, it was kind of a tale to be told. I don’t know. I haven’t read the script. I’d have to get into it but that one made me go, what would I do? It’s easy in retrospect. For me it’s the stories no one has heard yet. There are stories out there that are going to cause huge headaches as far as doing due diligence and in talking with all the right people. And we’ll see how it goes.
My Library
