Iowa Film Featured Prominently at the Rural Route Film Festival in New York

Iowa is featured quite prominently in this article in the New York Times about the Rural Route Film Festival in Queens (in New York City):

Filmmakers Head to the Country, in Several Countries

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/movies/rural-route-film-festival-in-queens.html

Back Lot or Industry? - Iowa's Place in the Film Business

When supporters of an Iowa Film Incentive talk, it is usually along these lines: "We need film incentives so film producers (Hollywood) will come to Iowa, shoot their films, spend money, and support the Iowa Film Industry". They usually talk and think of Iowa as solely a location. They speak of economic impact in terms of purchases at local businesses. All this is well and good but it certainly does not create an industry, at least not a permanent one. This is because if the flow of films ebbs, those Iowans working in the business will have to either go elsewhere to seek opportunities or find another line of work.

Regarding Iowa as strictly a shooting location and placing ourselves entirely at the whims of the production slate of Hollywood studios is a very limiting way of thinking. To consider Iowa as being exclusively a location brings a few problems and limitations with it. Weather is one of them. Most productions are likely to be shooting during the warmer months of the year. This leaves film workers idle during the winter months.

When considering Iowa as a location most producers imagine only farms and small towns. This hardly makes Iowa unique as there are similar farms and similar small towns in other states and in Canada.

Even in thinking of Iowa as just a location, the thinking is limited because Iowa encompasses more than farms and small towns. There are many wooded areas that could stand in for other locations (think "Robin Hood"). There are areas with sheer rock faces (the bluffs along the Mississippi), and places with tall buildings (Des Moines and Cedar Rapids). Beyond that, most people forget that it is possible to build sets to represent other places. For example, for the film "Aaseamah's Journey" an Iraqi village was built. That's right, in Iowa! Just because this is Iowa doesn't mean that filmmaking with imagination can't happen.

About this "film industry" of ours: Although many call it such, presently it is made up of just a few small companies that produce local and regional television commercials and industrial films. This hardly qualifies us as a mecca for film production. Having feature film productions come in from Hollywood is unlikely to change this much. What is needed is our own indigenous film industry - one with projects that originate within our own borders. If any of these achieve success it may be enough to create the conditions to build permanent businesses and infrastructure.

The film business is not just camera crews on location. There are other facets of the business that function before, during, and after principal photography. Most of these functions are not dependent on locations (mountains, deserts, oceans) or weather and many could certainly be in Iowa.

Functions that take place before shooting and could be anywhere include, and are not limited to, screenwriting, storyboards, film completion bonds, insurance, and budgeting. Why couldn't some of these activities take place in Iowa? Being in close geographic proximity is not as much of an issue as it once was because of technological improvements with communication.

During principal photography, not everything needed is location dependent. During the days of the studio system, sound stages were heavily used and many films today still employ sound stages for part of their production. Because sound stages offer more precise control over shooting conditions and protection from weather, they would be an ideal addition to Iowa's film infrastructure. Besides augmenting the needs of visiting Hollywood productions, they could also make it possible to produce Iowa originated productions year round. If some stages were built with unique characteristics, such as an extra large studio tank, or special equipment for green screen or motion capture, it might be possible for Iowa to attract some movie business that doesn't involve farm and small town locations.

Sound stages also encourage television production. Television shows would be good for the Iowa film community because they typically employ film workers for longer periods of time than feature films and thus provide more stable employment. Television should not be ignored when we talk about a film industry.

A film doesn't end when the cameras stop rolling. There are many processes needed to finish a film and there is no reason they can't happen in Iowa. Films need to be edited, sound mixed, and color corrected. Films need to be scored and, if it is not released digitally, lab work must be done. Why can't at least some of this be available in Iowa?

Lastly a completed film must be marketed and distributed. Distribution is where the real power lies in the industry and it is the function that completes the production chain. Why not have some distribution companies in Iowa? The established companies may have most of the advantages but nothing ever stays the same. With imagination Iowa could have a piece of this business. With distribution in place we could say we truly have a film industry.

So what is Iowa's place in the film business? Back lot or industry?

What NOT to do with the Iowa Film Incentives

There's been a flurry of activity lately behind the scenes regarding bringing the Iowa Film Incentives back. With the scandals that caused the current program to be suspended there's a strong effort underway to get things right this time. This would be by replacing the current program with a new and improved one. The hope is to eliminate the omissions and remove loopholes that allowed the program to be abused. Many of the steps to take or not take are obvious. But there are a few things to avoid that look good at first glance but are likely to prove troublesome in practice.

Here are some things to avoid doing:

Shifting most of the film credits to higher budget ($25 million and up) productions.

On this surface this idea looks really good. The bigger the production, the more people hired, right? When you look closer to the wide range effects, some problems emerge. Because so much money is at stake on these higher dollar projects producers will tend to cover their bets by hiring already established industry professionals for the more important and high paying positions. For the most part these people will be those from the major production centers (Hollywood and New York, mostly). Because of their proximity to these locals these people are going to have much longer resumes and deeper experience than the average Iowan can hope to get right now. The result of this is that for most Iowans the most likely areas they will be hired for is for the low end and low paying jobs such as Production Assistant or Extra. This would hardly bring in the influx of income that a film program would be expected to bring in.

Smaller productions, although lower paying and requiring closer supervision, do offer a greater chance of advancement than the big films. This can translate into better jobs on the larger budget shows when these people get hired there. It also improves the quality of Iowa's film talent pool making the state a more attractive place to shoot a motion picture or television production.

Another potential benefit of supporting smaller productions is that some of these can be locally originated. If some of these become successes it is possible that some of these producers may want to put down roots, building infrastructure so they can continue to make films in Iowa. Why? Because we as a state supported them, hardly the situation they would find out in L.A.

Big films can be good and they can be exciting but let's not ignore the big producers of tomorrow.


Giving film incentives for using an Iowa-based pass-thru company

A producer can't find the people or equipment they need in Iowa. So they are allowed film credits if they use an Iowa-based pass-thru company to act as a go-between to procure what they need. Sounds like a way of getting things established, doesn't it? Since Iowa doesn't have a sufficient talent pool built up to staff these film jobs the state can still make itself attractive by offering a way around. And therein lies the problem.

Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't the idea of the film incentives to create film employment for Iowans, in addition to the purchase of goods and services - to build an industry, not just to simply bring films into Iowa?

Pass-thru companies are perceived by the public to be a financial shell game - a cheap accounting trick - because, if you look closely, that's exactly what they are - a way of laundering money paid out so that companies can still receive film credits that they would not otherwise receive. Because they are using an Iowa-based go-between to do their procuring of crew and equipment they are rewarded. Outside of the very few Iowans running these pass-thru companies, no Iowans benefit from these transactions.

Instead of training Iowans for important jobs, pass-thru companies allow producers to be still rewarded for not hiring our citizens. Instead of encouraging Iowa-based film support businesses to develop and grow, these pass-thru companies instead
benefit the established players in other states.


Keeping information about films that are set to shoot a secret

While it might be understandable to keep some information about a film production confidential - contracts, casting decisions, budget information (except perhaps that which which involves film credits) - it is not so understandable that the existence of a film and its contact information should be hidden from the Iowa public. Somehow this issue has never come up, but when the typical Iowan, the kind without personal industry connections, finds out about a production being shot, it is already too late. The crew positions are already filled and the film is already cast. The Iowa Film Incentive Program is supposed to give opportunities to all interested Iowans, not just a few select insiders, right?

If any of the above things are included in a new Film Incentive Program there is sure to be trouble ahead and we might not have a chance to recover again.

"Get what you need and then get the hell out"

Just got word that a film production company is going to be shooting "pick-up" shots for the movie "Butter" soon at the Iowa State Fair. Pick-up shots, for those unfamiliar with the term, are quick location shots to insert into the rest of the footage. The rest of the footage for this movie is being shot in Louisiana because of the Iowa film credits evaporating after being Culverized. It was originally planned to shoot it in Iowa.

That now makes two films that logically should have been shot here but weren't: "Butter" which concerns the butter cow at the fair, and "Cedar Rapids" which, although its story location is Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was actually shot in Ann Arbor, Michigan with only "pick-up" shots (quick establishing shots) actually being shot in its namesake city.

Fade to black? Cutting film tax break misses the big picture

The following editorial (link below) describes New Jersey's governor considering cutting their film tax credit in order to balance the budget. Too bad we didn't get any advanced warning and we didn't get the opportunity to oppose it. Our governor just decided to unilaterally blast it out of the water - Culverize it! - without asking anybody else whether it was a good idea, other that his yes men. Let's work to get a film incentive back in and to get him out.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/06/fade_to_black_cutting_film_tax.html

Michigan film tax incentive keeps cameras rolling at Pixofactor

Last time I checked, still no new film businesses of consequence opening in Iowa. Who says film incentives don't do any good.

Mich. film tax incentive keeps cameras rolling at Pixofactor
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100617/BIZ/6170380/1001/Mich.-film-tax-incentive-keeps-cameras-rolling-at-Pixofactor

Atlanta studio opens as filming in Georgia booms

Yet another article about a new film studio in Atlanta, Georgia. To think a version of this could have happened in Iowa.

Atlanta studio opens as filming in Georgia booms
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/06/atlanta-studio-opens-as-filming-in-georgia-booms.html

New Mexico Still Going Strong But Threats Lurk

In this article you can see that even with a successful film program there are those who oppose it. If Iowa's can be resurrected and made to function well perhaps those who would threaten it could be fended off.

Read more: Richardson announces funds and warns about film industry’s future - New Mexico Business Weekly

The plot is thinning on Iowa film fiasco

This is a Letter to the Editor from Gene Hamilton and Jay Villwock that appeared in the Tuesday, June 15, 2010 issue of The Des Moines Register:


We appreciate the Register's continuing coverage of the Iowa film tax-credit situation, including the June 11 article, "New Charges Filed in Film Probe."

Remember the '70s TV ad where the old lady at the burger counter asks, "Where's the BEEF?" Well, Iowa's film industry is likely to ask that same question when it comes to the open-ended and nearly year-long investigation of Iowa's film tax-credit program.

Let's take an inventory of state agencies that joined in this probe parade: auditors, tax experts, prosecutors and criminal investigators - a Grand Inquisition that so far has yielded charges against only one film out of more than 100 film projects.

For this, the state has slammed the door on every Iowan involved in the film industry, not to mention out-of-state producers who had plans in place to create permanent studio facilities for multiple film projects to be made here in Iowa.

As the never-ending Iowa film tax-credit probe continues, and while the Iowa film community joins the legions of Iowa's unemployed, many creative Iowans must have that famous Peggy Lee song running through their heads: "Is That All There Is?"

- Jay Villwock and Gene L. Hamilton, Des Moines

Suggestions for a NEW Film Tax Credit Program

A little while back I posted a blog on here about "What is your wishlist" concerning the film tax credit program. I promised I would post what suggestions I was going to send to Senator Dotzler and his study group as they look at the film credits this summer and today is the day. What Senator Dotzler hopes to do is to introduce a new bill in the 2011 session that would replace the present flawed and suspended program. I'd assume it would keep only the elements that worked and I'd hope that it would not only fix what is wrong with the present program but would offer improvements. As I've said before, we aren't going to get a second chance, so let's get it right this time. I've spent a bit of time formulating my suggestions for this very reason.

This (along with copies of the original materials with notes written on them) is what I'm going to send to Senator Dotzler and his study group:

Dear Senator Dotzler and members of the Film Tax Credit study group,

As I understand it, you are working on a new Film Tax Credit bill which would supersede the present one if it is passed in the new legislative session in 2011. I do realize the importance of getting through the November election and getting past the trials that came about as a result of abuse of our present Film Tax Credit program. Timing is very important.

Ever since Governor Culver's freeze of the program in September of 2009, I've been following what has been going on and thinking about solutions. The following suggestions are what I've come up with after talking to others and considering the problems myself. Please understand in presenting these suggestions I'm only representing myself and not any of the various film organizations in the state or any national interests. These simply are my ideas of what I think might work and make this, once and for all, an effective program. (It might not be a bad idea to see what has worked in other states too.)

The following are my suggestions:

I think, to begin with, that we need to rethink what our ultimate objective should be with the film program. There has been so much made by detractors of the program of tax credits being a “race to the bottom” that we need to look at what this program really means. In its present form our program would certainly seem to fit this idea . It's been pointed out that Iowa having the best incentives is only temporary until another state tops us. The present objective has been to simply attract Hollywood productions to the state in order for them to spend money here and hire a few Iowans. In effect it's been to make our state an extension of their backlot.

I would suggest a new farther sighted objective. I think we should approach this as a means to build a permanent film industry inside our borders. I think we should expand the training beyond the lower level support jobs that were encouraged and look toward building a fuller infrastructure of film related businesses including those involved with post-productions and beyond. Our ultimate goal should be a self-sustaining film industry that can keep going long after outside productions have left and to make it possible to gradually phase out the tax credits so that this industry can contribute to the state's budget through taxes.

One thing that could be argued about the Iowa Film Office is that Tom Wheeler did a very good job at the job he was originally hired for – promoting Iowa as a place for productions to shoot and acting as a liaison once they were here. The trouble started when he was expected to do jobs that he was not qualified to do. He did not have a law degree so it was inadvisable that he be expected to be an expert in legal matters and he was not a motion picture accountant so it was not surprising that he was not the person to go over the books of television and motion picture productions using the Film Tax Credit program.

Politically it is unlikely that he could be hired back to run the Film Office but there are things that could be done to eliminate, or at least minimize, the possibility of the kinds of problems we experienced. I would suggest we separate the original duties of the Film Office from the responsibilities that were added with the tax credits. Additional staff should be hired to process the applications and to process the receipts to make sure that the expenses claimed are qualifying expenses. This staff should be under the oversight of a different department than the Iowa Film Office (the Department of Revenue would be the obvious choice). Furthermore there should be a built-in auditing component to this to double-check the work done. The people hired should know about the norms for the film industry as far as prices and what would be normal production expenses. There should be someone who knows about tax credits – especially film tax credits and any legal questions that aren't obvious should be referred to the Attorney General's Office. Putting the two parts of the film program under separate jurisdictions would prevent undue influence over the awarding of tax credits and keep the Film Office doing what it does best.

Before Governor Culver froze the Film Tax Credit program in September of 2009 a problem with the program was that most prospective Iowa film workers were not aware of productions needing cast and crew until it was too late. The titles and contact information of approved productions was kept confidential and most job seekers could only find out through word-of-mouth or news stories. I would like to suggest then that the titles of films that have applied and have been approved should be made public as soon as the information is available and that the Iowa Film Office website acts as a clearing house for this information. The information would include the title of the project and all of the relevant contacts so that the producers are not inundated with individual requests. I think that the Iowa Film Office should be the source of this information because it would be in the best position to be an honest broker. No film organizations, whether Iowa based or national, should be considered for the dispensing of this information because of the possibility of selectively withholding this information for the benefit of their own members. Likewise, a registry of Iowa film workers should be under the Film Office's control in order to be fair to all Iowans.

When qualifying for tax credits only the portions of a production's budget (specific line items) directly connected to film credits should be open to public scrutiny. The total budget of a film should be a matter for the producers. Instead of a minimum qualifying budget, Iowa should instead require a minimum expenditure of qualifying items. If this threshold is met, then the production would be eligible for tax credits as long as the receipts are in order and the items qualify. Items not qualifying would be excluded from the total. Under the present program having the whole budget subject to public scrutiny has been a bone of contention for producers. This is because it makes public items that have nothing to do with the tax credits and breaks confidentiality agreements with participants. Only expenditures that affect tax payer dollars should be open and transparent. The matter of how much of the budget to make public would affect how much the producers would avail themselves of the tax credits. They would have to balance that out for themselves.

The program should be structured so that films of most budget levels could qualify (low, medium, high). Care should be taken so that a large budget production could not suck up all the resources from other films and that all films have a chance, if requirements are met. At least half the budget should be raised before being considered and an adequate time to raise this money should be built into the program.

There should be a more orderly application process. Something should be done (I'm not sure yet what) to eliminate the bum's rush that the process had become. The idea of steps to complete was a good one but the process needs to be re-examined nonetheless. Make sure receipts are definitely turned in and withhold tax credits if they are not. The loose and easy way the program was run created the problems we have now.

All Film Productions should have to be bonded and have funds in reserve to meet payroll. The awarding of film tax credits would be contingent on meeting payroll obligations. There was at least one film that had qualified for tax credits that still hasn't paid the cast and crew that worked on it and instances of workers having to wait to get paid because of the producers waiting for tax credits. This is certainly not the way we want business conducted in Iowa.

No Credits should be awarded for "Above the Line" Expenses. Above the Line Expenses – that is, the principals of any given (director, producer, lead actors, etc.) are among the most expensive parts of a production and it should be the producers, not tax payers, who bear the risk of recovering the cost of these contracts.

No more "Pass-Through" Companies - The idea of Iowa-based companies being created to purchase or rent items out of state for the purpose of qualifying for tax credits rightly looked like a shell game to tax payers because that is precisely what it was. Get rid of the provision. It doesn't encourage film related businesses to locate here or originate here. It merely provides a dodge from buying and renting film related equipment and supplies from Iowa vendors. I don't know who made this suggestion in the formation of the bill but it was a bad idea from the start.

Credits should only be awarded for expenses incurred inside Iowa borders. Certain pre-production expenses would qualify such as location scouting if it met the requirements. Post-production expenses would qualify if the work was done by Iowa companies. Distribution and marketing expenses would not qualify unless we expand the film tax credits to include Iowa-based entities doing this work.

Only equipment purchased in Iowa and that remains in Iowa should qualify for credits. Anything that the production should already own would not qualify and all uses would have to be proven to be related to the production of the film. Rentals also would have to be done with Iowa based companies to qualify as well as purchase of supplies and expendables.

The percentage of tax credits awarded should reflect the percentage of Iowans employed. Workers would have to provide proof of residency in order to affect the amount of credits awarded. In addition to this, no tax credits should be awarded for any film until Iowa film workers and Iowa vendors have been paid. This would encourage a higher percentage of Iowans being employed on a project by producers.

I would like to suggest that there be no Iowa Income Tax exemption for film workers. Potential workers hardly need any incentive to get into the film business. The work is well paying and there is a perceived aura of glamour (although the actual work is different). The most crucial factor affecting whether Iowans leave their present jobs for employment in the movies is whether there is enough work to sustain a career. Exemptions on state income tax does not affect this at all and is not needed. In fact it holds back unnecessarily the benefits of films being shot in Iowa from the state treasury. I can't speak for others but I would expect that most would be willing to forgo the income tax exemption if it meant that the program could move forward and jobs could be created. Again, I have no idea who suggested this particular idea for the program but it is a flawed concept.

All approved productions should have locked in tax credit contracts. All contracts should have a maximum amount of qualifying expenses set with amounts over this totally the producer's responsibility. No amending. If the maximum set is not sufficient, producers should have to apply for a new contract from scratch with the application of such made public.

Motor vehicles used in productions would have to meet requirements in order to qualify for tax credits. This was very vague in the original film tax credit incentive bill. No purchased vehicle would be eligible unless it was an expendable item (destroyed as part of the making of the film) or it was for use in a permanent Iowa film business. A permanent Iowa film business would be one with a location either purchased within the state or with at least a five year lease in an Iowa location and being based in Iowa. Otherwise only leased and rented vehicles used specifically for the needs of the production would qualify.

No credits should be awarded for anything where money does not change hands. The whole idea of the program is to have productions add to the Iowa economy, isn't it?

No credits should ever be given for expenses incurred in selling the awarded tax credits. The tax credits are a benefit to the producers and it should be their expense, not the tax payers, to sell them to other companies.

No tax credits should be awarded until all relevant receipts have been turned in and reviewed. This might have already been inferred above but it bears repeating.

The program should be reviewed every year. It should be obvious by now that the program as it stands right now was not perfect. No matter how carefully a new program is designed it is unlikely that every kink will be worked out and every loophole closed if and when it is reinstated. It is also not clear if the staffing will match the needs for a given time period. For that reason I suggest reviewing the program each year and making adjustments as needed so that the debacle that just happened can never happen again.

Lastly I'd like to suggest that you give the Film Tax Credit program at Least 5 Years to work. Lots of people seemed very quick on the draw to scuttle the program and we have little idea how well it actually worked. I think it should be given at least 5 years to prove itself. Unlike how something like farm subsidies have been handled (which, by the way, has continued long past when they were needed), I think the tax incentives should be designed with the idea in mind that eventually they should be reduced and then eliminated.

The film tax incentive program should be thought of as a form of scaffolding for this bridge to potential prosperity that is this infant Iowa film industry. Right now it needs the support in order to be built and to gain strength but eventually it should be expected to stand on its own. It should remain standing and be self-supporting even if productions from outside the state cease to shoot here.

-David Thrasher

My Story - The Quick Version

I've wanted to make my living in motion pictures since the time I was in junior high school. When the film tax credits came along it appeared that I had a chance of doing that and doing it right here in Iowa. I cautiously felt my way into it and ended up with a peripheral job on the movie "Splatter" shooting documentary footage of the location shoots. I was ready to investigate other opportunities, perhaps even have something more directly to do with the quality and success of a movie when our Governor, the "great" Chester Culver, the "Big Lug" himself, Culverized the film business in Iowa by imposing a freeze on the film tax credit program. Since then this state has turned into a ghost town as far as feature film production is concerned and because of how this was handled it is going to be a long time before producers consider coming back here. I've never wanted to make my living working the typical "straight jobs" that Iowa offers so I've been trying to come up with my own income producing opportunity that does not depend on an employer. Film is still a ways off for me.