Texas Movie Incentives = Texas Movie Censorship

"We can tell the story, 'The Scoundrels of Texas.' We have scoundrels. As long as we portray our scoundrels accurately, then those projects, you know, will be able to be included in the program," Texas Film Commissioner Bob Hudgins recently told News 8 Austin.

Hudgins was responding to questions about his recent decision to deny state assistance to Entertainment 7's movie project Waco, on the grounds that events depicted in the script did not accurately portray what the Branch Davidians and others said happened during the violent 1993 standoff near Waco that left more than 80 people dead.

Of course, who can judge what is "accurate" and what is not? One hundred people watching one incident will see it one hundred different ways and can create one hundred totally different accounts of what they just witnessed.

Movies -- unless they are billed as documentaries -- are fiction, and in fiction, anything goes. Nothing is "real."

As Austin actor and writer Curtis Wayne has pointed out: "Did The Sopranos paint New Jersey in a good light? Do you think NJ would vote 'yes' on incentives to have it shot there, knowing what they know now? Of course they would. This is silliness."

The provision invoked by Texas Film Commissioner Bob Hudgins goes beyond "silliness," however. State legislators have imposed outright censorship conditions that deny incentives to moving image projects which portray "Texas or Texans in a negative fashion."

Texas has long prided itself on being big, bold, strong and independent. But in this ridiculous case, it is attempting to protect itself in the same manner that a small-town Chamber of Commerce might try to guard the business image of its population-10,000 burg.

I repeat, movies are fiction, and in fiction, anything goes -- including "factual" inaccuracies and Texas buffoons and crooks. Was the TV show Dallas an accurate description of Big D, Texas and Texas oil tycoons? Yee-haaa! That's a big NO, cowboy. Has the fact that Dallas stayed on the air for 13 years, until 1991, somehow stopped or hurt Dallas-related tourism? No, people still show up from all over the world eager to see Southfork Ranch and other memorabilia of the series.

Texas definitely has not been hurt by this bald-faced bit of fiction. Indeed, the state has made a ton of money from it and equally inaccurate shows such as Walker, Texas Ranger. And Texas could keep making tons of money from Texas movies and TV shows, even those that criticize the state and mock the attitudes and mannerisms of the citizenry. We can be embarrassed all the way to the bank.

The Waco movie project had an estimated budget of $30 million, much of which would have been spent in Texas. The production company also wanted to shoot another movie in the state. Now, according to Entertainment 7's Emilio Ferrari, his company will "never ever" shoot a movie in Texas.

Quite a few Texans, some of them currently unemployed, were counting on those movie jobs, and now they won't be working. The production company also will not be buying food and supplies and renting equipment in Texas. This is a much bigger embarrassment than enduring 120 minutes of celluloid fiction showing federal agencies and Waco's Branch Davidians ending up in a violent shootout, standoff and deadly fire.

If the Texas Legislature has any sense at all (and, quite often, that is strongly questioned by Texas voters), the "in a negative fashion" clause should be stripped out of the Texas moving image incentives statutes just as soon as possible.

-- Si Dunn

#