Lights, Camera…No Action: Guyana’s Film Ambition Without a Framework

𝘉𝘠: 𝘏𝘦𝘮 𝘒𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘳 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙄𝙧𝙛𝙖𝙖𝙣 𝘼𝙡𝙞’𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙢𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙖 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨, 𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙨𝙩, 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚—𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙩, 𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚.

Because in the global race for film and creative industry investment, Guyana is not entering a vacuum. It is stepping into a fiercely competitive marketplace where countries have spent years—sometimes decades—building legal frameworks, financial incentives, and institutional systems designed specifically to attract and retain production capital.

Consider Trinidad and Tobago. Through its Trinidad and Tobago Film Company (FilmTT), the country offers structured cash rebate programmes of up to 35% for qualifying local and foreign productions. This is not a vague promise—it is codified, accessible, and supported by clear guidelines. Productions benefit from established permitting processes, location scouting support, and a functioning ecosystem of trained crew and service providers.

Jamaica goes further. Its Jamaica Promotions Corporation (JAMPRO) administers a well-defined incentive regime offering up to 25% in tax rebates, combined with streamlined customs facilitation, duty concessions, and an established film commission that actively manages international productions. Jamaica’s Film Commission is not aspirational—it is operational. It closes deals, facilitates logistics, and ensures that investors encounter efficiency, not uncertainty.

Even Barbados, with a smaller landmass and resource base, has moved decisively to position itself as a creative economy player, offering production incentives, modern intellectual property protections, and clear regulatory pathways for investors.

Beyond the Caribbean, jurisdictions like Georgia in the United States offer transferable tax credits of up to 30%, while countries like Canada and South Africa have built billion-dollar film sectors on the back of aggressive, well-structured incentive frameworks and robust legal protections.

 𝙉𝙤𝙬 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙁𝙞𝙡𝙢 𝘼𝙘𝙩.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙁𝙞𝙡𝙢 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙖𝙭 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙢𝙚.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣, 𝙚𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙡 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

Guyana’s Copyright Act, rooted in outdated provisions, does not reflect the realities of digital distribution, streaming rights, or complex international co-productions. Enforcement mechanisms remain weak, leaving creators and investors exposed. Trademark protections exist in theory but lack the consistent enforcement necessary to build investor confidence.

And perhaps most critically, there is no integrated policy architecture that connects vision to execution.

Instead, what Guyana currently offers is natural beauty without regulatory clarity. Potential without protection. Invitation without infrastructure.

This is not a small gap—it is a structural disadvantage.

When a production company evaluates a location, it is not simply asking, “Is this place visually compelling?” It is asking:

 𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨?

𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙?

𝙒𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮?

𝙄𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚?

𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨?

On each of these questions, Guyana struggles to provide a competitive answer.

The $3.7 billion allocated to the orange economy, while significant on paper, does little to resolve these fundamental deficiencies if it is not directed toward building legislative and institutional capacity. Without reform, that investment risks becoming symbolic—an announcement rather than a transformation.

The creation of a National Multistakeholder Taskforce may suggest movement, but taskforces do not compete with tax credits. Consultations do not replace compliance frameworks. And ambition, no matter how frequently repeated, does not reduce investor risk.

President Ali is correct in one respect: Guyana should not be on a single track. Diversification is necessary. The orange economy, if properly developed, could unlock new revenue streams, empower local creatives, and position the country within a rapidly expanding global industry.

But diversification without preparation is not strategy—it is exposure.

If Guyana is serious about becoming a “mega hub” for culture and entertainment, then the work ahead is not promotional—it is legislative. It is institutional. It is technical.

 𝙄𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩, 𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧.

𝙐𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣, 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩.