Texans who don’t pay for ad-free subscriptions or switch off location-based marketing may have encountered a few star-studded ads talking about shooting movies right here in the Lone Star State last year. Actors Woody Harrelson, Katy’s own Renée Zellweger, and unofficially official Texas ambassador Matthew McConaughey teamed up for the “True to Texas” campaign, encouraging the state legislature to pass SB 22 and “bring productions home.” Harrelson and McConaughey even revisited their old True Detective roles to make their case. The bill, which allocates $500 million to the recently established Texas Moving Image Incentive Fund, provides tax breaks, rebates, and grants to television and movie productions opting to film in the state through 2035.
To be clear, Texas already offered film incentives. Even before SB 22 passed by a 23-8 vote, director Taylor Sheridan was filming his shows Landman and Yellowstone in the state, while also helping build out the world-class production house SGS Studios in Fort Worth. Alfred Cervantes, president of the Houston Film Commission (HFC), calls the latest bill “a game changer” and “the most competitive incentive program [Texas] has ever had.”
SB 22 placed Texas in much more competitive company alongside the likes of Georgia and New Mexico, both of which experienced considerable growth in their film sectors after passing similar legislation (why do you think Breaking Bad took place in Albuquerque?).
In the afterglow of beloved Houston-based Netflix dramedy Mo, which infused the local economy with an estimated $24 million, HFC established the Houston Feature Film Incentive Program. Now, eligible movie and television filmmakers who choose to shoot within 60 miles of Downtown’s City Hall get 10 percent back on what they spend hiring local cast, crew, and vendors, up to $100,000. This benefit works alongside the state’s incentive program, not as an alternative or replacement. Both are designed to encourage producers to hire local and Texas workers to boost the state’s film sector.
“Any incentive program is designed, really, to be a workforce development program,” Cervantes says. “That’s why we only give back funds for local hires.” Companies won’t receive the associated rebates for people hired out of city or state. So far, he says at least three feature films took HFC up on the offer between its announcement last fall and April of this year, and the team is actively traveling to film festivals and meeting with producers face-to-face to evangelize Houston as a destination for their next projects.
But what does this excitement mean for homegrown filmmakers?
David Clark, co-founder of the meetup and screening series Not Another Film Organization (NAFO), says there was a lot of enthusiasm when talk of SB 22 first came up. Trepidation followed “because people didn’t have high hopes for it.”
A creative drain among Houston’s film talent has already resulted from many aspiring cast and crew members leaving for states with more opportunities. But Clark believes that, with state and local initiatives, Texas film creatives might have more motivation to stay put.
Houston is already home to a thriving and supportive film scene thanks to organizations like River Oaks Theatre, Houston Media Source, Houston Cinema Arts Society, and Southwest Alternative Media Project (better known as “SWAMP”), but local filmmaker Shahd Shahroor of Honey Blackbird Films, who has shown her work at NAFO, is hopeful this recent legislation will translate into bigger opportunities in the film industry for her and her peers. “I would love to see Houston become a new film hub spot, because I think it’s just filled with so many amazing people,” she says.
Although the idea of enticing household-name production studios to Space City sounds exciting, Texas state filming incentives are still offered by…well…Texas. Benefits come with caveats about who receives them and who gets denied—not just based on budget, but also content, and “a lot of people feel that the political climate in Texas doesn’t align with arts industries,” Clark says.
The Texas Film Commission’s website states that film and television projects may be considered ineligible for benefits if they “include inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion.” Neither of these dealbreakers is clearly defined, but in a state where books featuring LGBTQIAP+ characters or lessons on Black history land on banned lists, it’s not difficult to imagine how media that even lightly touch on these topics could be denied.
For Shahroor, a Palestinian American Muslim, this vagueness raises questions of just how helpful SB 22 will be for creatives of politicized and marginalized identities. At a time when simple ablution stations at airports draw ire from the governor (contrary to rumor, they are available for use by travelers of any faith), it’s not outside the realm of possibility that straightforward, slice-of-life glimpses into the day-to-day worlds of Palestinian Americans or Muslim Texans could get slapped with the “inappropriate content” label. “I don’t think any group [or] nationality of people should be prevented from speaking and telling their stories and using their voice to bring any sort of benefit and any sort of solace for themselves and their work,” Shahroor says.
Although Clark, too, wishes to view the bill optimistically, it’s difficult to quantify what portraying “Texas or Texans in a negative fashion” actually means. Both Landman and Yellowstone feature morally questionable central characters who, as he notes, involve themselves with cartels and commit arson and infidelity. “Who gets to decide what a ‘negative light’ is?” Clark asks.
It’s possible that such limitations could also affect entire genres, particularly crime and thriller. “What if somebody wanted to make a movie about all the bodies that are showing up in the Houston bayous, and they’re investigating it?” Clark says. “You could say that looks bad.”
There’s also the issue of who can afford to take advantage of the incentives. SB 22 requires a television or film project to spend at least $250,000 on eligible Texas talent and resources to qualify for the 5 percent grant; that number increases incrementally, up to 25 percent for projects that spend $1.5 million or more. To qualify, 35 percent of paid crew and 35 percent of cast members, including extras, must be Texas residents, and 60 percent of the production must be completed in Texas, according to the state’s website. Additional smaller grants are available for productions that hire veterans, operate in a rural area with a population of 300,000 or less, or are faith-based or take place on a historic site.
Still, budgets differ for commercials, reality TV, animation, and video game projects, which raises the question about which options are available for emerging artists and filmmakers working on tighter budgets. Like, say, those currently working in Houston and showcasing their work via NAFO, SWAMP, and other local venues.
The truth is, there aren’t many. Or, at least, when it comes to SB22.
For Houston-based microbudget filmmakers, Cervantes suggests applying for Houston Arts Alliance grants and similar initiatives. Austin Film Society also offers funding opportunities for producers and directors from across Texas, not just at the capital.
In the wake of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strikes, which, in recent years, have centered on actors’ concerns about artificial intelligence duplication and streaming residuals, it’s also worth considering whether studios plan to move production to Texas to circumvent union requirements. As a right-to-work state, Texas law supersedes union cooperation—and, thereby, union rules and regulations. But SAG-AFTRA isn’t concerned about the potential loss of union work and protections for actors involved in productions here.
“The reality is that union work exists in every right-to-work state,” a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA said in an emailed statement to Houstonia. “With SB 22, Texas will attract more major studio productions seeking to take advantage of the incentives available while maintaining their union requirements—not dodging them. Texas has long been an important player in the entertainment industry, and thanks to SB 22, it will continue to maintain a strong foothold in the market.”
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a union that also works in film production, echoed a similar sentiment. Its members have worked on Texas-based series, including Mo, Landman, and the Academy Award-winning One Battle After Another, which was shot in El Paso. They don’t see the encroachment of film production into a right-to-work state as a threat to the protections they offer workers. In fact, it’s been an asset.
Brent Taylor, vice president of Teamsters Southern Region, says he’s seen the union’s film department in Texas grow from 50 people in the early 2000s to 250 today. He credits SB 22 with bringing more Teamsters to work here, but not as an excuse for productions to cut costs by hiring non-union talent.
“When a major production comes in, they want professionals because they’re driving pieces of equipment that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They don’t want just some guy off the street driving their very expensive equipment,” he says. “They want professionals who have experience.” This goes beyond the Teamsters. A strong production requires strong team members across departments. Neither Houston nor the greater state of Texas lacks professionals or talented newcomers. They just need more chances to show off their skills.