L.A. Moves to Woo Back Filmmakers : Movies: The city will hire a ‘film czar’ to address the $2-billion-a-year flight of productions to outlying areas. Some cite restrictive rules, fees; others say industry is to blame.

Film and television producers have been gnashing their teeth for years over what they characterize as Los Angeles’ insufficiently grateful attitude toward their industry. They blame city officials for driving them into the arms of more hospitable communities by erecting unnecessary barriers and imposing burdensome costs, causing the region to lose more than $2 billion a year through what is known as “runaway production,” according to state estimates.

To address these complaints, Los Angeles will soon follow the example of cities such as New York and San Francisco and hire a director of motion picture and television affairs who will serve as an advocate for the industry and report directly to Mayor Tom Bradley. Many in Hollywood find it ironic that the film capital has been so slow to join this trend.

Getting to this point has involved years of bureaucratic in-fighting, including intensive lobbying for the position by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which hired Maureen Kindel, a former Board of Public Works president and longstanding ally of the mayor. The City Council approved establishment of the so-called film czar post last March.

And even now, after all the wrangling, it is far from certain that the new official, expected to be chosen next month from a field of 300 applicants, will have the clout the industry is seeking. Last week, a five-person committee whittled the list down to 30 top contenders, from which five names will be submitted to the mayor.

The conflict over the film czar, whose salary is to be paid by permit fees collected from the industry, pitted Kindel against another longtime Bradley associate, chief executive assistant Anton Calleia, who warned his boss that Hollywood was trying to install an in-house lobbyist on his staff.

As it happens, Calleia has worked closely with Charles M. Weisenberg, who currently holds the title of director of the motion picture division of the Board of Public Works, which issues permits and coordinates among various other city agencies.

Weisenberg, who has applied for the film czar job but is not expected to get it, has civil service protection and will retain his current post. “The way this (new) position is conceived Mr. Weisenberg will stay in place,” Calleia said. (The new mayoral assistant will serve at the mayor’s will.)

Although he said he has long supported the film czar concept, Weisenberg said, “What this person would do that’s different from what I do, I don’t know.” Nevertheless, Weisenberg concedes that his power is limited. “If I ask (the) Building and Safety (Department) for relief, sometimes I’ll get the right time of day, and sometimes I won’t.”

But the new job is intended to encompass a good deal more than permit-granting, according to Kathleen Milnes, who is employed by the producers’ alliance as its in-house lobbyist. “This is an economic development job,” she said, citing industry concerns involving the city’s infrastructure, historic preservation and city codes.

To many in the industry, Weisenberg is often unnecessarily obstructive. “His attitude about us is very negative . . . and he sees his function as to regulate us and shorten the leash as tightly as possible,” said one industry insider who insisted on anonymity.

But Weisenberg said filmmakers bring most of their problems on themselves through their arrogant interactions with local residents. On any given day, from 30 to 50 crews are operating in the area.

“Some of those who are unhappy with me are unhappy because I am not a totally committed advocate who is blind to the faults of the industry,” Weisenberg said. “One of the most significant problems that we have with filming in Los Angeles has to do with the rude and crude behavior of film companies . . . To ignore that is crazy.”

As the industry sees it, Los Angeles has long taken filmmakers for granted, without providing incentives to dissuade them from fleeing to other locations. Not only do homeowners charge exorbitant rates for the use of their homes, producers say, but in contrast to other cities, a single resident can prevent a crew from shooting on an entire street. Fire and police protection--billed to the film company at overtime rates--is often required when it seems unnecessary.

“I’ve just had it with all the headaches inherent in shooting in Los Angeles,” said producer Leonard Hill, who recently finished filming in San Diego. “ . . . You could shoot a picture in the middle of a parking lot without a physical structure anywhere in sight and still be required to have a fire safety officer.”

Despite the costs associated with traveling, filmmakers who leave town can save between $150,000 and $200,000 on a typical low-budget six-week shoot, according to Hill, who also complains about special fees imposed by local municipalities such as Malibu.

From Weisenberg’s standpoint, the industry often makes unreasonable demands. While the city was under post-riot curfew earlier this month, for example, one film company asked him to secure a waiver so they could shoot a scene near the spot where Rodney G. King was beaten, he recalled. Granting one would have been “totally irresponsible,” he said.

The allegations of rudeness are “partly true, unfortunately because movies are so high-profile, all it takes is one rude, irresponsible jerk to ruin it for many other films,” said producer-director Robert Greenwald, who is currently on location in Oregon.

As an employee of the Board of Public Works, Weisenberg has no authority to press industry demands with other city agencies, such as the Police, Fire and Parks and Recreation departments. The industry’s hope is that the new film czar will be able to facilitate requests because of “the prestige of the mayor’s office,” said Herb Jellinek, a former television network executive who serves as president of the mayor’s Film Development Committee, an advisory group. “It’s different if somebody calls (a department) and says, ‘I’m from the mayor’s office.’ ”

But the industry’s expectations may be unrealistic, according to Weisenberg, who pointed out that while the mayor “usually gets what he wants,” he has no direct authority over city departments. “The mayor’s office is not going to go to the fire department and have this or that fire law changed,” he said. “I don’t see how this can be done unless the film czar is given an incredible amount of clout.”

Calleia said the new czar will “oversee all of the industry’s relations with the city” but will have no supervisory powers.

He is baffled by claims that the new position is needed, contending that Los Angeles “has bent over backward to make things easier for the industry.”

Having “an in-house lobbyist” on the mayor’s staff could be dangerous, he added, “because the person wouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny that regular lobbyists would.” But state and county officials, who say the new position is long overdue, see it in terms of an aggressive ombudsman and expediter. “What has been lacking in a very proactive sense is somebody who can go out there and head off problems,” said Patti Stolkin Archuletta, director of the California Film Commission. She added that what is called for is someone with “people skills and political clout.”

Last month, after it seemed likely that the entertainment industry would play a large role in picking the film czar, Calleia took the unusual step of running an ad for the $56,000-to-$70,000 job in trade publications. Within two weeks, the City Personnel Department received 300 applications.