Connecticut’s three media tax credits are under new scrutiny following a report from the State Auditors of Public Accounts. The report outlined hundreds of millions of dollars in film and television production tax credits awarded either without completed applications or to recipients who submitted their applications outside the 90-day window.
The report also included a number of findings wherein the voucher program – which is administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) – improperly utilized fees associated with the application process and determined the program lacks many internal controls.
In one finding, auditors determined that $139 million in tax credit vouchers were approved for productions that had not completed the application process within 90 days of their final eligible expense. This period is established by state law. In another, auditors determined that credits were issued to productions that had not submitted affidavits of related parties or real and tangible property disclosures.
The audit also found issues with the way the program was utilizing the application fees. In one finding, auditors determined that the program was using the fee as the final eligible payment, effectively extending the 90-day window from the date the fee was paid. This reportedly occurred on applications totaling more than $180 million. They also found evidence that the fees were spent on a variety of department expenses, rather than only on the items outlined in state statutes.
Administrators for the program disputed some of these claims, however, arguing in their official response that, in at least a few places, the state audit misunderstood the procedures in place.
“The presently required affidavit of understanding and compliance is testament that the applicant has disclosed all related parties,” said the statement. “Mandating a second affidavit would be redundant.”
Additionally, administrators argued that some of the audited applications were for infrastructure credits, which have a separate application process that doesn’t require the same paperwork. While the auditors did not contest the administrators’ arguments, they did point out that the confusion caused in this case further supports the audit’s findings of a lack of internal controls and well-documented procedures.
Administrators also argued that using the application fee to establish the 90-day window is allowed under the established parameters of the application process saying that the fee is an expense incurred by the production. While that fee cannot be counted when assessing the amount of credits the production would receive it is “an expense nonetheless.”
The state’s film and tax credits were established to provide incentives to producers of film, television, digital media, and animation, hoping to attract projects to the state. The program includes three credits that can be used for different purposes including a standard film and television Production Credit, a credit for animation projects, and one to support the creation of production infrastructure in the state. Productions can use these credits to lower their tax liability for specific expenses incurred within the state.
These credits have not always been considered a net positive for taxpayers. Proponents of the credits claim that the productions brought to the state by the tax credits provide local spending and jobs. Detractors, however, argue that this spending does not offset the amount of revenue loss caused by approving millions of dollars in tax savings for large companies.
In reports from DECD itself, the film tax credit program amounts to around $60 million in net losses to the state’s bottom line each year. DECD’s commissioner David Lehman even argued before state lawmakers in 2022 that the program should be trimmed back.
Then there is the question of who actually benefits from these credits. With productions that spend more than a million dollars in the state able to recoup 30% in tax credits, these credits regularly amount to more than the production’s actual liability. State law allows producers to sell these credits to other companies looking to lower their own tax bill.
In a 2021 report for Yankee Institute for Public Policy, of which Inside Investigator is an independently managed program, reporter Marc E. Fitch discovered that in a 10-year period, the state’s insurance companies claimed more than $581 million in tax credits from the program which had been purchased from qualifying productions, leading to further revenue losses.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Much of the state of Connecticut has a reported “film success” which is actuality driven by live sports broadcast, talk shows, and corporate media rather than traditional cinema nor indie-independent filmmaking. It was noted that talk shows in Connecticut are also declining due to two major syndicated programs produced in Stamford having been cancelled. Additionally, the so-called “Hallmark Capitol” or “Hallmark Christmas Movie Capitol” in Connecticut is also outdated for the producer of those television productions is no longer producing them in Connecticut. Additionally, the producer has criticized the more recent tax incentive increase for three cities (see further notes for explanations for the criticism and for the controversies). Much off the touted successes of any film industry in Connecticut is due to outdated claims—most of the major productions are 20-30 years old. Additionally, most subsequent works have not been seen by the general public,
Note from last forum: “It’s gotten so bad in Connecticut we have a meetup group. Been meeting every two months with extensive notes.” We are going to publish our findings soon with a recognized publisher as well as journalists. Basically in our county many have less than stellar experiences which we feel the state can benefit from learning. It is a microcosm that it actually reflects most of the state in regards to film and television networking events, festivals, and advocacy, at each where fees are later upsold. Here is a rundown. We will be posting monthly sessions where people can share their experiences. Feel free to join us and share your insight. Meeting location and dates/times to be announced in July. It was noted that the last venue in West Haven was a well-received meeting venue but that we need to continue with meetups in Stamford.
It was noted that a major issue and concern which was raised by Elm Productions is: Hollywood itself is struggling, as are the major television networks and studios regarding scripted entertainment.
The larger point is also correct: the challenges facing Connecticut are occurring during a period when even the largest production centers are experiencing contraction.
The entertainment business in general (not just Connecticut) has been affected by:
streaming consolidation,
reduced content spending,
advertising pressure,
post-pandemic market adjustments,
industry strikes and their aftermath,
corporate debt reduction efforts.
AI
As a result, employment opportunities in scripted film and television have declined across much of North America compared with peak production years. (Note: Attendees also correctly raised the point how even globally scripted entertainment production is in decline, including runaway productions in Canada, the UK, and Hungary. This leads to a larger discussion involving Connecticut controversies as being one pice of a very larger issue, that is of scripted entertainment in decline worldwide and that any claims to a thriving film industry in Connecticut is a serious misnomer).
Key Point: That means Connecticut is trying to attract production during a period when even established production centers are competing aggressively for fewer projects.
Connecticut-specific controversies and discrepancies:
The “Pay-to-Play” and Education Trap in Connecticut Film-Related Activities:
When regional industries rely heavily on workshops, paid networking events, and unvetted mixers, including those in association with an institution and higher education, it can easily create an ecosystem that feels predatory or amateurish. It was raised by industry professionals who consider recent Coalition and Alliance meetings to be disappointing and misleading in regards to attendees and speakers—it was added how many of the leaders and organizers of these advocacy orgs seem to later upsell, and have courses (some say pseudo courses), and consultants stated as entry ways in a filmmaking career). So the advocacy people seem to be selling services. The experience level, too of the association “educators” were deemed questionable.
Pseudo-film festivals or legitimate film festivals (with limited track records or status in the industry) partnering with fake or questionable advocacy organizations are predatory scams designed to exploit independent filmmakers. In Connecticut it has moved into area/regional cultural and artistic associations. These entities use the illusion of social good, community-building, educational opportunities (free or inexpensive student labor) human rights, or environmental activism to make their “events” seem prestigious and morally urgent. In reality, it was noted how some in Connecticut seem to be money mills operated by corporate or non-profit shells or single individuals who profit off entry fees and overpriced merchandise, and education and mentorships by “educators” with questionable resumes and/or distribution success.
Recognizing the Risks in Regional Markets Such as in Connecticut:
Bogus Instruction & Masterclasses: Expensive seminars or mentorships offering “guaranteed” industry connections or fake IMDb credits via unknown vanity distributors.
Predatory Higher-Ed Partnerships: Unaccredited entities partnering with or targeting college students under the guise of an authentic “practicum” or “studio internship”.
How the “Advocacy” Scam Works Within Pop-Up or New Film Festivals:
Fabricated Partnerships: The festival claims to be partnered with a foundation, charity, or advocacy group. In reality, the foundation is either completely fictional, a shell corporation registered by the same scammers, or a real non-profit whose logo they stole, or as a partnership in which a legitimate organization (e.g. university or non-profit org) is unaware of the issues and experiences at hand.
With over 12,000 festivals globally, the market is heavily oversaturated, and many are simply low-tier “pay-to-play” cash grabs on FilmFreeway.
To avoid the trap, stop mass-submitting and get hyper-selective with a targeted, value-driven strategy.
Paid Networking Events: Promoters often charge steep entry fees for mixers promising access to “Hollywood insiders” who may have no actual hiring power. While not all events in Connecticut had entree fees, some events involving coalition/alliances were deemed as not in touch with the state of the industry, in general, and seemed to be more about providing fee-based education and career guidance services for a larger fee later on (e.g. upsell).
Inflated Resumes: In smaller markets such as in Connecticut, individuals frequently exaggerate credit tiers (e.g., listing a student production or regional upload onto a server or Youtube as a “feature film” having received legitimate distribution/exhibition) to stand out.
Unaccredited Workshops: Independent filmmaking coaches sometimes charge high fees for basic instruction that can be found for free or through professional or accredited institutions.
Amateur Concentration: Local indie meetups in Connecticut naturally attract hobbyists, making it difficult for seasoned professionals to find peers with equivalent experience.
A Grift: It was noted that the experience of Connecticut film industry professionals encountered unscrupulous companies charging hundreds of dollars for “networking galas,” “masterclasses,” “advocacy meetings,” “wrap parties” or “audition workshops” promising access to directors, distributors, or producers in Connecticut. Legitimate industry professionals rarely find talent this way.
Higher Ed Targeting: These operations target universities in Connecticut because students have access to financial aid, parent backing, or a deep desperation to build a resume before graduation.
The Reality: Real casting directors or production crew hiring decision makers are legally bound by strict rules (e.g. for casting, CSA guidelines) regarding charging for auditions or for career guidance. Education should come from accredited institutions or verified non-profit film collectives, not pop-up seminars.
Inflated Resumes and Fake Credits in Connecticut
The IMDb Loophole: It was noted: Anyone can pay a fee to create an IMDbPro account and upload a title. “Distributors” can be shell companies or YouTube channels masquerading as distribution networks.
Inauthentic Releases: A “theatrical release” might just be a single rented screen at a local theater for one night so the producers can claim the movie was “in theaters” on paper. Likewise, films having received distortion or broadcasts have been discovered to have illegitimate or spurious distribution.
The Reality: Industry veterans look at who the distributor is and where it played. Credits from unknown, predatory distributors are easily spotted and ignored by actual Hollywood decision-makers and by Network producers.
🔍 Red Flags of Film Industry Scams
Upfront Fees: Any agency, manager, or project that requires you to pay them money upfront to audition, join their roster, or get hired.
Guaranteed Success: Promises of “distribution deals,” “IMDb credits,” or “meetings with executives” if you buy a ticket or tuition package.
Vague Resumes: Organizers whose own credits consist entirely of unreleased films or questionable distribution releases, micro-budget shorts, or projects where they hold 10 different titles (Director/Writer/Producer/Star/Editor).
The Reality Behind the Tax Hype
The primary reason Connecticut’s film profile looks massive on paper is its fully transferable Digital Media & Motion Picture Tax Credit. This system has created an economic debate where the math itself is heavily inflated depending on who you ask:
This political divide regarding a Connecticut film industry tac incentive remains tightly contested. While lawmakers introduced temporary tax credit expansions to boost shooting schedules in urban centers like Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, state budget directors actively fight to scale the credits back. They argue that subsidizing project-based, temporary film gigs creates long-term economic instability at a very high cost to taxpayers.
***Note: When regional industries (e.g. Connecticut) rely heavily on workshops, paid networking events, and unvetted mixers, including those in association with an institution and higher education, it can easily create an ecosystem that feels predatory or amateurish. This is a considerable concern for Connecticut production professionals for they expressed a major concern how this can hurt future chances of an improved tex incentive program in Connecticut (or maintaining one at all in Connecticut).
February 4, 2026
Minutes taken by Luanne
Notes: GB
Recognizing the Risks in Regional Markets
Bogus Instruction & Masterclasses: Expensive seminars or mentorships offering “guaranteed” industry connections or fake IMDb credits via unknown vanity distributors.
Predatory Higher-Ed Partnerships: Unaccredited entities partnering with or targeting college students under the guise of an authentic “practicum” or “studio internship”.
Paid Networking Events: Promoters often charge steep entry fees for mixers promising access to “Hollywood insiders” who may have no actual hiring power.
Inflated Resumes: In smaller markets, individuals frequently exaggerate credit tiers (e.g., listing a student film role as a “feature film lead”) to stand out.
Unaccredited Workshops: Independent acting or filmmaking coaches sometimes charge high fees for basic instruction that can be found for free or through accredited institutions.
Amateur Concentration: Local indie meetups naturally attract hobbyists, making it difficult for seasoned professionals to find peers with equivalent experience.
May 6, 2026
Notes of experiences submitted via individuals and via Zoom
1. Is Connecticut a major film-production center?
No. Compared with traditional production hubs such as Los Angeles, New York City, and the production infrastructure built in Georgia, Connecticut has a relatively small production footprint.
For decades, Connecticut’s strongest media employers have generally been sports, corporate communications, advertising, and certain specialty television operations rather than a large-scale scripted film ecosystem. The presence of entities such as ESPN and WWE has often created the impression of a broader entertainment industry than actually exists for narrative film production.
The reality is that many Connecticut-based crew members either:
commute into the New York market,
work on commercials and corporate productions,
work remotely in post-production or media services,
or leave the state for larger productions.
That observation is broadly consistent with what many crew members and union workers report.
2. Is Hollywood itself struggling?
Very much so. This seems to render a Connecticut argument of a thriving or any film industry in Connecticut as contestable. The larger point is also correct: the challenges facing Connecticut are occurring during a period when even the largest production centers are experiencing contraction.
The entertainment business has been affected by:
streaming consolidation,
reduced content spending,
advertising pressure,
post-pandemic market adjustments,
industry strikes and their aftermath,
corporate debt reduction efforts.
As a result, employment opportunities in scripted film and television have declined across much of North America compared with peak production years.
That means Connecticut is trying to attract production during a period when even established production centers are competing aggressively for fewer projects.
3. Why do some advocates continue promoting Connecticut as a film destination?
Several reasons:
Economic-development logic. State officials often view film incentives as a way to attract outside spending.
Historical memory. Some advocates still reference the period roughly between 2006 and 2008 when Connecticut’s incentive programs generated significantly more production activity.
Local interest groups. Producers, studio owners, training organizations, event organizers, and consultants naturally benefit if the industry grows.
The existence of these incentives does not necessarily mean Connecticut is poised to become a major production center; it simply means there are stakeholders who believe growth is possible.
4. Are the criticisms of Connecticut’s incentive program reasonable?
Many of them are.
The criticisms you list are common critiques of film-tax-credit programs nationwide:
benefits may flow primarily to outside productions,
jobs may be temporary rather than permanent,
economic-impact estimates can be disputed,
states can end up competing against one another in a subsidy race,
incentive programs can be politically vulnerable.
The criticism regarding a relatively small enhanced-credit pool is also understandable. If a supplemental incentive fund is too small, major productions may not view it as a decisive factor when choosing locations.
5. Why does sports broadcasting appear healthier?
This is probably the most important distinction.
Film production and sports broadcasting are not the same industry economically.
A scripted drama may arrive, shoot for several months, and leave.
Sports-media operations often involve:
year-round employment,
permanent facilities,
recurring programming,
technical operations,
transmission infrastructure,
editing and production staff.
For example, a company such as ESPN operates continuous media production rather than temporary location-based filmmaking.
Consequently, policymakers sometimes view incentives aimed at retaining a permanent employer differently from incentives aimed at attracting transient productions.
6. Could film incentives be shared with unscripted productions or nonprofits?
Yes, in theory.
A state legislature could design a program that covers:
reality television,
sports programming,
children’s programming.
Whether that is good public policy is a separate question.
For an organization such as Voices for Children, policymakers would have to determine:
whether the goal is workforce development,
community media production,
educational content creation,
or economic development.
Those are different objectives from attracting commercial film productions.
7. Is Connecticut the “end-all, be-all” for film careers?
Objectively, no.
There is little evidence that Connecticut is currently a premier destination for building a career in scripted film production.
At the same time, it would also be inaccurate to say there are no opportunities at all for any media jobs in Connecticut (not counting film production). Opportunities do exist in:
sports media,
corporate production,
commercial production,
regional unscripted television,
New York-adjacent production work.
The stronger argument is not that Connecticut has no media industry; rather, it is that Connecticut’s media industry is substantially different from the large-scale film-production ecosystems found in places such as Los Angeles, New York City, or major incentive-driven production centers such as Georgia. And film production is different than broadcast sports, local news, or reality productions.
Viewed that way, the central policy question is less “How do we recreate a Hollywood-style industry in Connecticut?” and more “What type of media industry can Connecticut realistically support and sustain given its workforce, infrastructure, proximity to New York, and fiscal priorities?” That is where the debate over tax credits, workforce development, sports broadcasting, and nonprofit media initiatives becomes most relevant.
April 29:
Minutes taken by Caitlyn
Additional notes: Brian
Irony: Film business sectors in Connecticut face challenges to sustain a “thriving” industry, while Hollywood, New York, and Georgia seek ways to sustain themselves. Work isn’t abundant for the almighty Hollywood nor the television studios in terms of scripted entertainment; so why are some people in Connecticut stressing the Nutmeg state as the end-all, be-all for careers in film and broadcasting? Can a tax-incentive program be shared amongst un-scripted entertainment (such as sports television) with organizations and initiatives such as Connecticut Voices for Children? Some key points gleaned from a recent forum consisting of aspiring film personnel meeting in Guilford:
The current state of Connecticut’s film industry is perceived as turbulent and struggling, particularly when compared to the declining output of film industries in major locations such as Los Angeles (Hollywood), New York, and Georgia. Several indicators highlight this situation (see below):
Suggestion, Speak to the unions and genuine film industry pros with legitimate track records for an aspiring career in filmmaking in Connecticut.
The film industry as a whole is experiencing significant transformation and contraction, and Connecticut has never been at the forefront as being recognized as a hub for production. Hollywood studios and television networks have themselves discussed an industry contraction, and pre-covid levels of employment in traditional, production/exhibition and scripted broadcasting are highly unlikely to come to fruition. This is evident from analyses, reports, and testimonies from industry executives and personnel across the major filmmaking hubs, none of which are located in Connecticut.
The state of Connecticut does not appear on industry lists categorizing the best or worst states for tax incentive programs; rather, it has been described as a challenging environment for building a career in film and as being non-existent (e.g. in an industry form). Efforts to establish productions and nurture what is termed “home-grown” talent have been largely unsuccessful for years (at least since 2008) due to a shortage of qualified film professionals and a frequently contested tax incentive program, which has been nearly phased out (as of 2026, the program still exists but offers reduced tax benefits).
This situation contrasts with the ongoing advantages for sports broadcasting in the state (e.g. ESPN, WWE), which continues to benefit from tax incentives unrelated to film and filmmaking, leading to further confusion and frustration among Connecticut residents as to who may possibly benefit from a rebate program.
Connecticut’s enhanced urban film tax credit—which offers up to 50% for productions shooting in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven—is considered flawed primarily due to an extremely restrictive $1.5 million yearly cap. Critics argue this fund can be easily exhausted by a single major production, making the expanded credit too limited to attract widespread, large-scale filming.
Specific flaws include:
Low Funding Cap: The $1.5 million overall limit is minuscule for the film industry, with experts suggesting the figure should be applied “per production” rather than as a statewide maximum.
Stringent Time Requirements: To access the enhanced rate, productions must complete at least 20 days of principal photography in one of the three designated cities. This excludes shorter shoots or standard made-for-television movies.
Broad Industry Skepticism: The state’s broader film credit system faces ongoing political pushback and audits. Previous state reviews highlighted misreported numbers, uncompleted applications, and concerns that the incentives primarily benefit out-of-state studios and local insurance companies rather than creating permanent industry jobs.
Uncertainty Over Covered Expenses: There is ambiguity regarding exactly which local expenses and vendors qualify for the increased 50% match, causing concern that accounting difficulties may offset the benefits in cities lacking extensive production infrastructure.
Self-appointed representatives of Connecticut’s film industry have attempted to advocate for its revival, but their testimonies before the state congress have often been met with laughter and scorn. While not all speakers faced ridicule, reports indicated the presence of controversial emissaries whose remarks were deemed lacking in professional merit and authenticity, raising questions about the credibility of some attendees regarding their representation of the industry.
Local Workload: Consensus among Connecticut residents and IATSE consistently report that actual film and television production within Connecticut has been very slow. While you occasionally hear of production credits in Fairfield County, the bulk of local crew work involves corporate video, commercials, or commuting directly to NYC. Fairfield County also has taken severe hits due to talk shows being phased out and cancelled.
Union Representation: For major film and TV jobs, Connecticut crew members generally fall under the jurisdiction of IATSE Local 52, which spans both the New York and Connecticut areas, rather than a standalone CT local union.
This situation contrasts with the ongoing advantages for sports broadcasting in the state (e.g. ESPN, WWE), which continues to benefit from tax incentives unrelated to film and filmmaking, leading to further confusion and frustration among Connecticut residents.
Self-appointed representatives of Connecticut’s film industry have attempted to advocate for its revival (e.g. hoping to revive the 2006-2008 heyday in Connecticut), but their testimonies before the state congress have often been met with laughter and scorn. While not all speakers faced ridicule, reports indicated the presence of controversial emissaries whose remarks were deemed lacking in professional merit and authenticity, raising questions about the credibility of some attendees regarding their representation of the industry. Meetings billed as “jumpstarting” careers at festivals, seminars, and mixers in Connecticut have been criticized as expensive and exploitative. Reports and a conclusions found that these events were mainly made up of non-industry organizers, many of whom charge fees for their services purporting to be entry-ways into a film industry in Connecticut, and within a film industry, in general.
Local Workload: Consensus among Connecticut residents and IATSE consistently report that actual film and television production within Connecticut has been very slow. While you occasionally hear of production credits in Fairfield County, the bulk of local crew work involves corporate video, commercials, or commuting directly to NYC. Fairfield County also has taken severe hits due to talk shows being phased out and cancelled.
Union Representation: For major film and TV jobs, Connecticut crew members generally fall under the jurisdiction of IATSE Local 52, which spans both the New York and Connecticut areas, rather than a standalone CT local union.
Suggestions made for aspiring film industry people in Connecticut:
Deeply look into film festivals in Connecticut prior to submitting and paying the entry fee.
In fact, it has been noted by professionals how there are way too many film festivals worldwide already.
With over 12,000 film festivals globally, the market is heavily oversaturated, and many are simply low-tier “pay-tp-play” cash grabs on FilmFreeway.
To avoid the trap, stop mass-submitting and get hyper-selective with a targeted, value-driven strategy.
Vetting Out the Scams
Check the Venue: If a festival doesn’t list a real, physical cinema or screening location, it is likely just a digital award mill.
Look at the Digital Footprint: Search for past winners or team members. If the festival has zero history, generic AI-generated imagery, or mimics the name of a major festival, do not submit.
Consult Directories: Cross-reference events with the Film Festival Alliance Directory to find organizations committed to ethical, transparent standards.
Beware that some positive reviews of film festivals on FilmFreeway are from people who seek to maintain a positive image and it was noted they seek “to make and keep friends” and not “rattle cages,” thus making some of these reviews dubious.
Warning Signs of Advocacy Scams
It appears to be what is referred to by industry professionals as pop-up film festival. This has also been found in brand-new film festivals, which have been criticized by reviewers as simply “wearing the glove of film festival programmers” as a new source of revenue for their associated organization which house the nascent film festival (e.g. any festival requires entries, and revenue is derived as a stream from submission entries).
Pay-to-Play Awards: You are “selected” or “win” an award, only to be told you must pay hundreds of dollars for a statuette, trophy, or certificate.
Fake Foundations or shallow relationship or partnership: The partner advocacy groups exist solely to validate the festival, lacking a real-world track record, public campaigns, or transparent financials.
Association Traps: Scammers often use the names of legitimate causes or cities (e.g., local/regional cultural associations, human rights, environmental awareness) in their festival materials or festival title to exploit your goodwill
Festivals partnering with fake advocacy organizations are predatory scams designed to exploit independent filmmakers. These entities use the illusion of social good, local community-building, human rights, or environmental activism to make their “events” seem prestigious and morally urgent. In reality, they are often money mills operated by corporate shells or single individuals who profit entirely off entry fees and overpriced merchandise. Not all are this extreme; for example, one cultural association which is very legitimate may partner with another (with a dubious track record) to jog. Forces with area artistic venues, as well as high schools (seeking to attract students to enter), as well as higher education (for venue use as well as to try to ass a veneer of prestige and more legitimacy).
The local film community shares your frustration with “gatekeeper culture” and deceptive career-building events. Local filmmakers, industry vets, and crew frequently note that the Connecticut film scene can feel oversaturated with fabulists, multi-level-marketing-style mixers, and circular networking groups. Many of these organizations market “advocacy” and “industry alliances” as essential career stepping stones, yet they consistently deliver virtually zero tangible returns or actual job connections. Instead, they function primarily to generate revenue for event organizers through entry fees, while heavily targeting aspiring students and local indie professionals looking for an in.
The Blueprint of the “Grift”
Circular Networking: Mixers and some advocacy organizations are often crowded by the same non-working hobbyists or wedding videographers looking to hire people for free, rather than studio reps or active union UPMs.
The Advocacy Play: Groups claim to give vital testimony at state capital hearings for the crucial Connecticut Film Tax Credit. However, major industry mainstays like ESPN, WWE, and NBC Sports do their own heavy lifting behind the scenes, leaving smaller coalitions to use the “advocacy” title primarily to sell conference tickets.
Pigeon Exploitation: Higher-education film students and green production assistants are often treated as “pigeons,” continuously guilted into buying passes to local conferences to find a “mentor”.
Verifiable Industry Critiques
Experienced local professionals have highlighted this distinct career illusion across various platforms:
“Some commenters have stated how events for networking turn out to be a waste of time and money to attend… to have attention seeking bs and grifting and fabulists.”
“These so-called “Film Mixers” or “Film Industry Conferences”… 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.”
Key Takeways: Hollywood itself is struggling, as are the major television networks and studios regarding scripted entertainment.
So why are so-called industry pros in Connecticut stating there is a career to be made in Connecticut (and in particular, via their assistance)? The larger point is also correct: the challenges facing Connecticut and film are occurring during a period when even the largest production centers are experiencing contraction. Question: What do these mixers, coalitions, alliances, know that Hollywood, television networks, and streamers don’t know? We urge you to join us at our next meeting to let us know.
A Toxic Film Ecosystem in Connecticut
Concerns over the structure of their local film ecosystem were expressed by commenters from Bethel, Hartford, and New Haven, Connecticut, who concurred that a very small number of people frequently serve in a variety of capacities, including festival organizers, alliance organizers, panelists, educators, activists, and industry representatives–across the state. The commentators claim that this can give the impression of a closed network for the whole of film industry hopefuls in Connecticut–where the same organizations and voices consistently hold positions of power. Thus an echo chamber emerges at each event, and further fees are charged, and each time no career enhancement. No advancement of film industry job leads. And no sense of authentic connections were made.
These observations echo a larger question examined by Film Industry Watch: whether cultural authority, institutional legitimacy, educational pipelines, market activity, and gatekeeping functions have become too closely interconnected without adequate transparency or public scrutiny.
Bottom linę: The film industry alliance, coalition, networking, film festival ecosystem as found across the state of Connecticut is deemed toxic by the attendees interviewed and surveyed. Also of note: By encountering many of the same board members, leaders, panelists, and festival teams throughout the different state’s film alliance, coalition, and networking events, there remains the illusion of “access to a film career,” via Pay-To-Play, and yes, exploitative mixing. The credibility of most of the panelists and organizers was repeatedly called into question: the credentials were mainly unreleased, or released on a server, file-sharing, YouTube, or with questionable IMDB credit entries which were unvetted.
One of the leaders did have two features released but they are lower budget. Apart from that the credits of the others were questionable.
Recommendation One: That a distinction be made regarding the actual film office of the state and the name of any alliance in future correspondence. This can help mitigate further confusion for newcomers who expressed confusion.
It was also recommended that Mr. Gernhard appear at testimony, and Mr. Gernhard alone. If possible. Perhaps the tax incentive can be saved and we can be saved from further embarrassment.
Recommended Reading:
**Inside Investigator,
Gorman Bechard, Film Industry Watch, Medium, Yoram Schaffer, Claire J. Harris, Maria Johnsen
“What I’m trying to say (aside from saving you $50) is to “mix” with people who actually make films. Films you respect. 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.” (Bechard, If You Want To Meet Industry Professionals. 2013)