Decision Delayed on Uniforms for Film Officers
Ed Fuentes
[Flickr]
An officer in LAPD uniform works the shoot for ABC pilot "Limelight" outside 650 S. Spring in March.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — City Council delayed action on a proposal to shift control over film officers today after LAPD Chief William Bratton agreed to put off a September 20 deadline for the officers to be out of his department's standard uniform.
Filming interests claim that a uniform change proposed by Bratton would drive filming from Los Angeles.
Bratton, either uncomfortable with retired officers wearing the LAPD uniform or hoping to put active duty officers in their place -- depending on who you talk to -- had stated that as of the deadline the retired officers would have to wear a uniform consisting of black pants, a white shirt and a baseball cap.
A motion signed by six councilmembers had asked that the retired officers be transferred to the General Services Department's Office of Public Safety.
Under the terms of the motion, the officers would wear the uniform of the GSD officers. That would likely require only a change in the patches on the officers' shirt sleeves -- instead of "Los Angeles Police," the patch would likely read "General Services Police." They would wear a patch on the front of the shirt that reads "Los Angeles Film Detail," but would remain able to wear their retired LAPD badges.
Councilman Greig Smith praised the Chief's decision, saying that he was sure that further negotiations would help them "find a resolution which benefits the City of Los Angeles, certainly, the movie industry, those retired officers, who I have great respect for, and the Los Angeles Police Department, which I also have great respect for."
Not mentioned were the residents who interact with film shoots. Judging by the comments found here on blogdowntown, many Downtown residents can tell stories of incidents in which they feel the officers working the shoots mistreated them or unfairly took the side of the production company.
Those stories must not have made it to the councilmembers who drafted the uniform motion, which says that "there have been no recorded instances of abuse or improper activity." Meetings in which filming is discussed are typically filled with representatives from the filming community.
The conversation now moves to the council's Public Safety committee. A date to hear the motion has not been set.
BigManBakes
lastreetcar
Metropolisbooks
cb1gallery
Alex Brideau III on August 05, 2009, at 01:05AM – #1
I still have yet to hear a credible argument as to why retired LAPD officers (a.k.a. civilians) are allowed to wear uniforms that mimic active LAPD uniforms. But I can say with certainty that Hollywood will not implode if FilmLA officers are required to wear non-LAPD attire.
Frank Jimenez on August 05, 2009, at 10:50AM – #2
This system of retired LAPD cops has worked well for OVER 50 YEARS and is one of the biggest reasons L.A. has been the action film capital of the world.
The retired officers are authorized under two sections of the municipal code and under state law.
Bratton's plan was an ego trip and the council whipped his butt. That's one of the reasons he is QUITTING.
Todd@FilmLA on August 05, 2009, at 11:56AM – #3
One point of clarification to a prior comment -- the motion picture officers who handle traffic and crowd control on-location are not FilmL.A. officers. Our organization has never been involved with the credentialing, funding or specific assignment of these officers. Retired and active/off-duty officers operate under work permits issued by the LAPD but are referred to film companies by third party representatives who specialize in officer assignment.
celia on August 05, 2009, at 01:22PM – #4
Actually, the system in place hasn't worked well for the past 17 years that I've been living downtown, and the weather is one of the biggest reasons Southern California has been the film capital of the world. But nice try.
And who has ever mistaken the retired police officers playing dress-up as "FilmLA officers", the same people you think believe your PR spin?
Benjamin Pezzillo on August 05, 2009, at 07:04PM – #5
Actually, the reason that the television and motion picture production industry continue to call Los Angeles headquarters is the availability and concentration of sound stages, equipment and talent.
Most other cities of Los Angeles' size provide permits without fees and police without cost. Many outside Los Angeles producers loath bringing productions here because of the retired officer expenses associated with lane closures and insert cars.
More to the point though, this is what the law of the City of Los Angeles says with respect to the Infrequent Use of Property for Commercial Filming:
"to assure that filming will be conducted at such times and in such a manner as to cause a minimum of interference with the enjoyment and use of adjacent property, and consistent with public health, safety and general welfare."
All the citizens want is someone who can actually enforce this law and not cloud the issue through wearing official uniforms and badges but not taking interest in resolving citizen complaints about the enjoyment and use of their property. If the retired officers have legal authority, they sure haven't been using it Downtown.
And to think this is why Bratton is leaving for a high paying east coast job really just drills down to the core issue here -- the arrogance of the film industry with respect to respecting others.
To put it in the contexts of an environmental analogy, production locations are non-renewable resources, once you burn them out, they stay burnt for a long time.
Bert Green on August 06, 2009, at 12:46AM – #6
Good points, Ben, but to me the issue is one of fairness (or corruption, depending on how you see it). What other industry can rent the police? Isn't this the same thing as the Chicago gangsters who had the police in their pockets in the 1920s? How awfully convenient to have people wearing police uniforms to intimidate and control the public while a private company makes money off a neighborhood.
The simple fact that Bratton wants to end this practice shows the decay of the film industry's power; they no longer can tell the city what to do. Then they have the gall to demand to prop up their failing industry with public taxpayer subsidies.
My business is down more than 50% in this recession. Can I please have a tax break too? And maybe some cops to keep the riff raff out?
Urban Bruin on August 06, 2009, at 03:54PM – #7
Bert,
Hit the nail on the head; NO other business/industry can hire private security and dress them up like real police officers.
I'm sure no councilmember would approve the same arrangement for retired "officers" to work the door at a night club in Hollywood or Downtown L.A., I'm sure they could make a compelling case as to why they need "police authority" to provide security for their business.
Retired = No longer a police officer (i.e. stop acting and dressing like one)
Oscar on August 06, 2009, at 10:04PM – #8
I bet "Frank Jimenez" is some girl in an office posting PR fakies in different blogs...
Like that last time when they were posting all those blogs making it look as if it was several different downtown neighbors but they all came from the same IP address and wasn't even in downtown... those sneaky bastards!
Officer Cialis on August 06, 2009, at 10:07PM – #9
Retired LAPD officer on film set job in the Historic Core to a resident complaining about the back-up of traffic several blocks at rush hour: "Do you know what would happen if this industry wasn't here?"
Resident: "All of these old buildings would still be here and you would not and I'm okay with that."
Officer Viagre on August 06, 2009, at 10:24PM – #10
GOOD FOR YOU OFFICER CIALIS!!!!
Randall BusTard on August 08, 2009, at 07:51AM – #11
Having dealt with the arrogance of the retired cops overseeing film shoots in downtown during the 1990s (the Valuta—which is now SB Lofts on 548 S. Spring—regularly rented its northern parking to studios, and the motormen would frequently park their motorbikes on the sidewalk greatly hindering access to the building for the business owners) and watching how that arrogance continues in poorly planed street closures (such as the 7th Street bottle-neck caused by a film shoot between Grand and Hope earlier this week during an afternoon rush hour; the footage I captured over 10 minutes shows an alarming lack of concern exhibited by the retired cop; I have quite a bit of such footage), I know that it is a practice that benefits ONLY the studios.
The studios are again making noise about lost revenue and blaming on something that is not the cause. Just as Jack Valenti lied about VCRs in the 1980s ("I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.") and the studios whinged about video counterfeiting in the 1990s (they even got union film support to do their dirty work for them when the problem was that the studios were pushing runaway production to Canada and Australia, enjoying the perks of non-union staff), once again the studios are making a hue and cry over false issues.
One might imagine that the dire financial straits in which many real estate interests find themselves have prompted property owners in downtown to raise their fees for studios to shoot. Gone are the days when downtown could be closed down for some crap like Phone Booth (which screwed up major bus and other motor traffic on 5th Street between Broadway and Spring for two weeks) so that a faux New York scene could be set up and cheaply shot. The retired LAPD staff were on hand to make sure disgruntled residents and business owners were kept out of the way. Had the studios shown some respect for previous generations of residents and business owners, perhaps there would not have been the problem that occurred when a new demographic moved in and refused to put up with the crap as well as make noise about the noise, lights and traffic tie-ups. In regards revenue, the porn industry probably does as well or better than the Hollywood movie studio system, and they manage to do so in the Valley without being noticed on location. Moreover, the results are less pretentious and only slightly less ludicrous than the dross being churned out by major studios today, so why not make the majors spend some time in the Valley learning how to do a movie shoot? The irony here is who gets screwed in the end, and who pays for it.
"In 2002, it was estimated that the pornography business, so vital to California economics and turgid male fantasy around the world, generated more than $57 billion dollars in revenue, $12 billion in the United States alone." A comparative history of the Hollywood Studio System and the porn business Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Volume 24, Issue 4 October 2004 , pages 635 - 652 "North American statistics indicate that porn makes more money than Hollywood at the box office, more than the sum of NBC's, CBS's and ABC's revenues, more than the music industry generates from record sales, and more than all the major professional sports in the United States combined." The Money Shot: The Business of Porn
Obviously, Hollywood is aware of these figures and is greatly concerned. The gripe about losing its combative edge over residents and business owners forced to put up with their arrogance is but a cover for the real reasons there will be fewer film shoots in downtown.
Oscar on August 09, 2009, at 01:04PM – #12
The movie industry has been raping us for the las 20 years, is time we push them out of the way and kick them in the balls and run away as fast as you can, but whatever you do, don't call 911 because, well, they have their own FAKE cops... HELP US BRATTON!
Officer Viagra on August 09, 2009, at 09:55PM – #13
We don't need Bratton, we need the new City Attorney to crack down on this.
Melanie on August 11, 2009, at 09:16PM – #14
Oh yes, Chief Bratton is quitting over the whole "retired cops wearing uniforms" issue. Why didn't I think of that?
Oh yeah - cuz it's silly!