Alright, but why is it OK that TV and Film productions are allowed to operate and consume massive testing and PPE resources while other non-essential activities are prohibited?
It's crazy how much weight Hollywood has in this country. Hollywood can open doors sometimes that even Apple and Google cannot, even though the entertainment industry is tiny compared to tech.
I believe it's because politicians get star-struck. Just look at how many celebrities visited the white house in years past. It's insane how much access they have to the highest levels of government.
It's because the studios are willing to spend lots of money and implement extremely strict protocols so that they can keep filming, because if they don't they will literally go bankrupt and die. And because the studios and the crew depend on filming for their economic survival, everyone involved is willing to do what it takes.
I have friends who work in Hollywood. They're not allowed to socialize when they're working on set, nor for the two week period before they start working on set. They can't use public transportation. They can't visit friends or families for Thanksgiving or Christmas. They must get tested multiple times a week: a rapid test nearly every day (or every day for some sets), and the regular test at least every two weeks. The stricter sets won't even let crew go to the groceries when they're off set; they must use Instacart or limit themselves to eating at the crew stations on set. When traveling, they must stay in lodging provided by the studios, usually AirBnbs because hotels are too risky.
I can't think of a more "non-essential" business than Hollywood movie production.
Why is Hollywood essential? It's basically the piggy bank keeping LA alive right now.
Hollywood isn't just the actors and studio executives. Hollywood includes over a hundred thousand specialists, ranging from tradesmen like carpenters and electricians, to caterers, stylists, and landscapers. Those several hundred thousand individuals further support smaller local businesses like restaurants, hair salons, etc. There are dozens of restaurants in LA that are still alive right now because a Hollywood shoot used them for catering and that money has kept thousands of restaurant employees employed. There are hundreds of stylists still getting by because of the one week they worked on a set, which paid more than they would have made working at their local hair salon for several months.
Do you honestly believe that the states or cities have the ability to take over supporting those 2 million jobs and 400,000 businesses if they ban film shooting?
(On another note: Film/TV shoots can be managed in ways that eliminate the possibility of spreader events, because Hollywood can and does require cast and crew to agree to all sorts of practices and behavioral restrictions far beyond the simple and unburdensome restrictions much of the general public has refused to do. Half of the country refuses to wear a mask when they go outdoors; Hollywood cast and crew have agreed to give up dating, socializing, traveling, and pretty much every thing outside of work just so that they can work this year.)
I'm asking if that's how "essential" is defined.
But that is also why Hollywood studios implemented such draconion covid procedures: they were necessary to get exemptions from the lockdown orders. They were the first industry to get these exemptions because of their outsized economic impact, and especially because of their importance to the LA area's finances.
16 million people work for restaurants. Many more are part of their supply chains.
And it's hard to argue that entertainment is more essential than food production.
16 million people work for restaurants. Many more are part of their supply chains.
True, in the entire United States, 16 million people work for restaurants, most of them in part-time positions. Hollywood employs more than 1 million people in California, and several hundred thousand in LA alone.
You may not consider Hollywood essential, but it absolutely is an essential industry in Los Angeles.
Hollywood studios likely already has the means to implement this on their own.
Maybe that's part of it, but I believe it's because they know these filmmakers have incredible power to influence.
Remember "Sideways"? A fictional character in a fictional movie said one negative line about merlot and wiped out the market for that varietal[1]. People who liked the wine suddenly didn't like it, because a character in a movie didn't like it.
Now consider all of the semi-fictional movies that are made, like Citizen Kane was about Hearst (which destroyed Marion Davies' reputation as collateral damage). Or all of the movies glamorizing war, soldiers, FBI/CIA/police or politicians. This is something our government has needed and continues to need people to embrace.
[1] - I asked some winemakers about this and they said merlot in Napa "was being ripped up like crazy" after the movie came out. And that merlot often ends up in red blends because selling it as a single varietal still doesn't fly. It's only coming back in the last few years.
"Other non-essential activities", not having the means to acquire these resources and implement these protocols, get to not operate.
Any links?
As far as I know, there is nothing preventing them from doing that beyond cost and time.
————————-
They produce shows that keep people inside?
The cost benefit is enormous. The same argument applies to things like vaccinations for sports. A fairly small number of people will keep millions of others indoors over the winter.
Sunlight is great! But socializing indoors is what spreads the virus. America is not reknowned for being a land where everyone was outdoors in the sunshine in normal times: vitamin D deficiency was already rampant.
And going for a walk is not exclusionary to TV. In places where it is present you can get enough vitamin D with 30-60 min sun exposure.
Not even in LA?
> And going for a walk is not exclusionary to TV.
No, it's not. But the argument was that TV encourages people to stay inside, which it does. If it's ok for people to go for walks, maybe it is not vitally important that we produce new TV shows right now.
Plus people watch TV in the evening. You can’t get vitamin D in the evening.
I’m a huge advocate of walks and getting outside! My point is TV is a substitute for socializing, and America needs less socializing now.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...