April 20, 2006

On April 11, the Birmingham City Council pulled one of its more jaw-dropping acts of tax-dollar appropriation (and there have been many) when it voted to give $5,000 to local filmmaker David Tucker to complete production of his movie Magic City. Tucker appeared before the Council to show a 90-second clip of the film. The previous Council had voted to verbally commit to Tucker’s initial request approximately one year ago. (Then-Council President Lee Loder recused himself from the vote at the time because his chicken-wing restaurant is featured in the film.) Councilors Valerie Abbott, Carol Reynolds, and Joel Montgomery opposed the first request for funding.

“How does this promote and showcase the city of Birmingham?” Councilor Valerie Abbott inquired. “In addition to the movie being titled Magic City, it implements how Birmingham came to be called the Magic City,” answered Tucker. “It was completely shot here in Birmingham, and all through the dialogue we’re talking about Birmingham. It places us in the ring as a contender to the film industry to let them see that we are doing movies in our city,” he said. Tucker added that Birmingham would be easily recognized since he filmed in the streets of downtown Birmingham, in the loft district, and around various local churches.

When pressed to further explain how Birmingham is showcased, Tucker elaborated, “The theme of the movie is a young lady who hypnotizes a young man to fall in love with her. But within that theme, we still talk about Birmingham and the Magic City, which is where they live. So it’s a play on words, with ‘magic’ and ‘our city’ being the Magic City. She hypnotizes him. It’s a very thought-provoking movie.”

Councilor Carol Reynolds informed Tucker that many Sidewalk Moving Film Festival participants also film in Birmingham, and they don’t come before the Council asking for funding to make their movies. “I just think it’s a little inappropriate,” surmised Reynolds.

In fiscal year 2004, the previous Council funded $30,000 to the county’s film commission. Abbott warned that other filmmakers might barrage the Council with requests for financial backing. “Since we have a [county] film commission, should filmmakers not be going to the film commission instead of the elected body of the city of Birmingham?” she asked. Councilor Roderick Royal said that since the previous Council had approved the funding, the current Council should fulfill that commitment. “I’m certainly interested in helping entrepreneurs,” said Royal. “If you mention the city as much as you say you do, I think we get a bang out of that, even if it’s just in a small way . . . I’m interested in promoting your career and promoting our city at the same time.” Royal added, “[The film clip] looks good, you’ve done a good job with your images, and the actors seem to be good actors.”

Councilor Stephen Hoyt, chair of the Economic Development Committee, was also impressed. “It clearly speaks to economic development. I think when folks go to the movie, then there are taxes that are taxed to that.” Hoyt then uttered the most ridiculous statement he has made during his short tenure since joining the Council in November 2005: “I think it’s wonderful. [We’re] always talking about young folks leaving Birmingham. Here’s one who stayed and is trying to make a difference. And yet we question him as if he stole some money somewhere. He hasn’t done that. I think he ought to be commended!”

Hoyt’s statement, which suggested that those opposing the funding were insinuating that the filmmaker’s request was tantamount to theft, clearly displeased Councilor Reynolds. She replied, “I believe that this young man is in the private enterprise of making money. Now if he would repay us this money . . . Councilor Hoyt just seemed to be a little threatening and disrespectful, and misrepresented some of the opinions given [by councilors].” Reynolds was the lone “no” vote. Councilors Joel Montgomery and William Bell were absent.

In a telephone interview after the meeting, Councilor Valerie Abbott explained her reason for changing her vote against the funding of the movie a year ago: “[Tucker] had come to us [previous Council] while we were in between the [now defunct] city film commission and going in with the county . . . And so, we committed the money to him already. And I originally voted against it, but I didn’t feel like, after we had made that commitment he had counted on, that it would really be fair for us to pull the rug out from under him . . . We had made a commitment. And I felt like that we should stand behind the commitment.” &