Leaders in the Connecticut film sector are feeling good about the state of the industry, and the benefits they receive through the state’s Film Infrastructure Tax Credit.
On Feb. 3, the Connecticut Film and TV Alliance (CTFTVA) and Rep. Bill Heffernan (D-West Haven) held a press conference at the Capitol to share some stories of successful productions in the past year and beyond.
A production that shoots at least 50% of their project in Connecticut, spends at least 50% of their post-production costs in the state, or spends at least $1 million in the state can get up to a 30% tax credit. Less expensive productions are still eligible for smaller credits.
There are around 14,000 Connecticut residents who work full and part time in the “manufacturing” of entertainment in Connecticut, according to Jonathan Black, the Co-Founder of CTFTVA, and Co-Chair of the organization’s Board.
In addition to employing Connecticut residents, the film industry bolsters the economy when productions pay for hotels, rental cars and taxes, Black said. He argued that this is good for the state and that Connecticut gets more out of a production that it puts in.
TJ Noel-Sullivan was one speaker who highlighted the role of the state’s film tax credit. Noel-Sullivan is a film director who was born and raised in Hartford. One of his friends was working on the movie “Ricky,” about a formerly incarcerated man who moves into his mother’s house in Hartford after he is released from Jail. The movie was screened at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The producers of the film wanted to film the movie in New York, but Noel-Sullivan talked them into shooting in Connecticut.
“I got on a phone call with his producers and him, and we went through the finances. We went through how the Connecticut film tax credit would benefit their production, how they could hire additional crew members as a result of the film tax credit,” Noel-Sullivan said. “After about three weeks of going back and forth, they finally said, ‘You know what, we’re going to shoot this in Hartford, where it belongs.’”
In 2020, the state paid $134 million in filming tax credits. That same year, a study commissioned by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) found that the entertainment industry generated almost $200 million in labor income in the state and $38 million in tax revenue, CT Mirror reported.
According to state audits, however, that might not be true: between 2020 and 2022, auditors found that the DECD overestimated film revenue by $600,000. During that same period, the state may have improperly awarded $100 million through this tax credit, Inside Investigator reported.
In the past, film industry members have supported efforts to increase the state’s filming tax credit. This year, there is a proposed bill that would cap the total aggregate amount of tax credits made available at $50 million.
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
These “leaders” do not represent everyone who legitimately works in film.
Another concern is regarding the industry, overall: if the incentive were to remain and improve, how can it overcome the next hurdle? That is, is there something magical that some of these Connecticut “leaders” know about bringing back the industry that Hollywood, the networks, the studios, and the streamers don’t? If there is, there are an awful lot of people and companies who would like to know.
With a new year ahead and hoping for sone real leaders for a Connecticut film industry, it’s important to recognize the value of discernment. If film industry personnel are to thrive or at least aspire to have a career, they need to recognize if they are being fleeced, or even if their time is being wasted. Some commenters have stated how events for networking turn out to be a waste of time and money to attend, and this doesn’t bode well to have attention seeking bs and grifting and fabulists. If it’s indeed true that some are working to target the higher ed pool of pigeons, as well as morphing into a variety of questionable events such as “film festivals,” then maybe it’s time to have some authenticity at the state hearings giving testimony. The headline is misleading. Entertainment leaders?!
There have been a number of “film and television networking events” and “festivals in the state of Connecticut following the cuts to the tax incentive program in the late 2000s. The collected consensus of many attendees have shown a distinctive view that they were no better off connection-wise to film and television personnel than prior to having paid an entrance fee for the mixer of “film festival,’ events put on by a group in the state that comes and goes. These events have had their detractors.
Filmmaker Gorman Bechard holds the view that conventional, paid film industry mixers are frequently ineffective for networking and securing employment within the industry. He recommends engaging with active filmmakers through their work instead of investing in general networking events. He mirrors the view of many attendees to area “festivals” and mixers in that they might be in attendance with a number of people of whom only a handful are related to the film and television industries.
Critics conveyed his doubts regarding generic industry mixers. They advised aspiring filmmakers to refrain from spending money to connect with others in similar situations:
Otherwise you’re paying good money to meet with people who are more or less no different than you… because the people you’re actually “mixing” with are the other people who paid $50 and are sitting next to you in the lecture hall. It might make for interesting conversation, but it certainly won’t advance your career. This has also mirrored the experiences expressed by attendees at festival type events by the same organizers.
“Let’s start this lecture by me telling you where NOT to start: These so-called “Film Mixers” or “Film Industry Conferences” or whatever their promoters are calling them today. They truly piss me off. They are nothing but a rip-off for these people who sincerely want to work in film. Their promoters take advantage of that desire, and what do they deliver in return? Absolutely nothing. Look at the people running these things. Have you ever heard or seen any of their films? (If you have, did you actually make it all the way through before shutting the damn thing off?) Have you seen films based on their scripts? Do their acting abilities make you jealous? Is there anything about their careers that makes you say: “Yes, that’s what I want for my life?” Most likely not. Most likely the people running and speaking at these meetups and mixers are not working full time in the film industry. Mostly likely they’re producing wedding videos, or doing something completely unrelated to film to pay their bills. Most likely they’re very similar to you, except that they’ve figured out a way to get you to pay $50 to listen to them speak.” (Citation, Bechard, blog, 2013).
Others have suggested the following:
Rather than participating in formal mixers, and festivals, these attendees and critics have promoted the idea of forming connections with individuals who are actively creating films that you admire. Are the attendees mostly students? Aspiring volunteers at their college were told to attend and meet industry personnel (after paying a fee)?
Bottom line of attendees interviewed: Be wary of mixers and film festivals (term used loosely) where you pay to meet mostly people who are not related to the associated industry. Critically evaluate what the event descriptions are saying; consider who has attended and who really has gotten work in the industry.
They don’t call them film mixers now they go to universities and bars and call them film festivals and Film TV events for Connecticut (-:
Total. Waste. Fest.
Ditto, the forum last week. It rocked..
I majored in film and television.loved my professors and still do. Loved connecticut then, still do. Hate what is happening to the connecticut film industry. hate the grifting. Love the ghost of the connecticut tax rebate..Mr Black and Mr Noel are cool sincere, others are scary.
Connecticut is not the place for a career in film . Dont know where is right now. But gorman was right. Sorry 4 the dreamers in connecticut film school now going 2 these waste fests..
Great piece. Thank you for shedding light. The headline is a little misleading, though the article is helpful. Thank you Inside Investigator and Ms. Appel.
“Entertainment industry”?
Who are ALL of these mouthpieces? Leaders of what? Low rent festivals, delusional film festival moguls? Public access producers?
What testimony before Connecticut congress needs on behalf of any film industry in the Nutmeg state: more authentic film industry personnel giving testimony.
Gorman Bechard’s scribes ring true today as they have for years. Ditto the surveys—attendees at Connecticut mixers did indeed feel fleeced—thank you T for your share.
Whose wallets will feel smaller after leaving a mixer or film fest next: more students, nach. Start-overs in Connecticut hoping to enter a film industry which is hobbled everywhere else apart from some Euro spots? Academic institutions (sadly a big yes). Look at what has happened for attendees at UB in recent days. Hartford again? Undoubtedly. State universities? Private Unis?The key to aiding and rebuilding a once popular (albeit brief) incentive in Connecticut is to not let ourselves to be fleeced, Connecticut. Film festivals of all sizes count entry fees as a source of revenue—are we really to believe mixer bros to have adequate human resource to put those entry fees to benefit Connecticut and its constituents? And loom a little closer at the credentials—local crowd funded, only to be thrown on Comcast in a few months? Vanity productions. How about some more audits? What can that show. Where do they actually work—placing a wager it isn’t close to film industry in Connecticut.
Our two daughters recently returned to our nest in West Haven after a promising film Industry faltered in (one in Georgia and one in California). Former network affiliate technician here—sad it seems to have gone by wayside—at least for now—so thank you Inside Investigator, thank you Mr Bechard, the survey peeps—you help to keep it real and reel.
PS—kudos Luanne for giving us a forum last week. Happy New Years to us all.
This kills: “There are around 14,000 Connecticut residents who work full and part time in the ‘manufacturing’ of entertainment in Connecticut . . .” Around? Full time? “and part time”? It does seem accurate to use the term “manufacturing” since that catch-all can represent so much. But it’s quite the stretch. ESPN, the affiliates, WWE, yes, love to have them, love that their companies benefit from an incentive. But sorry, that stat seems beyond hyperbole. Part time? Like buyers for retail, or retail itself, or working with their parents, non-film or television related, vanity productions, name-droppers, we met a juggler at a recent event, several hopeful actors with limited credits, same for the former wedding videographer (excuse me, studio producer, couldn’t name the studio). Students who were told to attend by struggling faculty. Aspiring hip-hop artists. Well, I guess they all count as “manufacturing.” (Do they need to be earning or be successful to be listed among this 14,000?) Quote of the week, “Bottom line of attendees interviewed: Be wary of mixers and film festivals (term used loosely) where you pay to meet mostly people who are not related to the associated industry. Critically evaluate what the event descriptions are saying; consider who has attended and who really has gotten work in the industry.” Transparency, please, less hyberbole, it doesn’t help the survival of our tax rebate program, it doesn’t help anybody in our state. Unless it is for these leaders whoever they are.
Wishing Inside Investigator happy New Year. Thank you for your work.
My feeling after having seen this:
This kills: “There are around 14,000 Connecticut residents who work full and part time in the ‘manufacturing’ of entertainment in Connecticut . . .” Around? Full time? and even “part time”? It does seem accurate to use the term “manufacturing” since that catch-all can represent so much. But it’s quite the stretch. ESPN, the affiliates, WWE, yes, love to have them, love that their companies benefit from an incentive. But sorry, that stat seems beyond hyperbole. Part time? Who are these part-timers working in film and television in Connecticut? Like buyers for retail, or retail workers in shops, or people working with their parents, non-film or television related surely, who make vanity productions, and name-drop. We met a juggler at a recent event, as well as several hopeful actors with limited credits, same for the former wedding videographer (excuse me, studio producer, he couldn’t name the studio). Students who were told to attend by struggling faculty. Aspiring hip-hop artists. Well, I guess they all count as “manufacturing.” (Do they need to be earning or be successful to be listed among this 14,000?) Quote of the week, “Bottom line of attendees interviewed: Be wary of mixers and film festivals (term used loosely) where you pay to meet mostly people who are not related to the associated industry. Critically evaluate what the event descriptions are saying; consider who has attended and who really has gotten work in the industry.”
Transparency, please, less hyberbole, it doesn’t help the survival of our tax rebate program, it doesn’t help anybody in our state. Unless it is for these leaders whoever they are.