OPINION: I question the efficacy of an alliance in Connecticut with helping our film people landing gigs. And keeping them or getting more. For an example, for the sake of argument, that all film industry networking groups which work with or create their own film festivals in Connecticut are on the level, they would nevertheless need to have the capabilities to conjure an industry which has taken major hits WORLDWIDE.

LA is way down. New York is way down. Jersey HAD a rise but was that not due to the temporary upswing following Netflix coming to town and building sound stages?

For Connecticut: sound stages, more secure tax incentives, these will not and have not amounted to a hill of beans: there just isn’t a way to deny the contraction industry-wide and worldwide.

Opinion: the bull horn folks making a stance at the capitol and at our colleges and universities and restaurants and hotels, and those who are creating their own “networking film festivals” in Connecticut, please consider waiving the fee to access your events for now if we are simply publicizing your names with free or cheap publicity, and sharing your photo opps of what are supposed to be throngs of a Connecticut film industry crew smiling for the camera.

It raises the question, what is the secret ingredient needed to revive a scripted film industry and breathe life back into the scripted film sector? If you possess such a formula, package it and share it widely. The worldwide scripted film industry WOULD LOVE TO KNOW. You would become wealthy through your seminars, film events, and discussions.

A commenter from Connecticut described concerns about the structure of their local film ecosystem, arguing that a relatively small group of individuals often appear across multiple roles as festival organizers, panelists, educators, advocates, and industry representatives. According to the commenter, this can create the perception of a closed network in which the same voices and institutions repeatedly occupy positions of influence.

The commenter further argued that collaborations between film festivals, universities, arts organizations, advocacy groups, and local government can sometimes produce misaligned incentives. In this view, institutions may prioritize visibility, economic impact metrics, recruitment goals, lobbying objectives, or organizational prestige, while emerging filmmakers and students receive limited practical career benefits in return.

Several recurring themes were identified, including the use of unpaid or underpaid labor through internships and volunteer programs, concerns about the value of paid networking events and industry panels, the reliance of some festivals on submission-fee revenue, and the possibility that cultural initiatives may be used to support broader political, economic, or real-estate objectives.

The commenter also emphasized the importance of transparency. Specifically, they suggested that filmmakers, students, and attendees should be able to clearly understand who organizes industry events, who benefits financially, what relationships exist between participating institutions, and whether individuals presenting themselves as industry advocates, consultants, or lobbyists have relevant experience and publicly verifiable credentials.

While these observations were presented as personal experiences and opinions rather than established findings, they echo a broader question explored by Film Industry Watch: whether cultural authority, institutional legitimacy, educational pipelines, market activity, and gatekeeping functions have become too closely interconnected without sufficient transparency or public scrutiny.

These are just a few examples over the years. But yet, I’ll still be submitting my next film to festivals. I love attending them, seeing new films, meeting other artists, so I don’t fault them entirely.