Final Words

I doubt I will be writing any more blogs or comments about the frozen Iowa film tax credits and the circumstances around them simply because I've said all I have to say about them. Unless something new surfaces from either the film trials or during the next legislative session, I have nothing to add.

I do need to clarify that I am not necessarily totally opposed to film incentives whether they be subsidies or tax rebates. I just think they should be straight forward and understandable to the average Iowa taxpayer with no smoke and mirrors to disguise how they actually work.

I'm sure there are a few people out there who have been wanting me to shut up about this issue, either because they are responsible for how the bill got written or because they think that bringing this issue up will harm the progress of restarting the Iowa Film Office. They will get their wish but this issue shouldn't be totally swept under the rug, because it could cause trouble again if it is ignored. I am surprised that they haven't made their objections known or have made any attempt to correct anything they have issue with. But that is their choice.

I suspect if nothing is done to replace the film tax credits, the legislature will either kill it outright or remove life support so that they can't be used. That is why I make the proposal that they consider making it an actual tax credit - that is, a refund on sales taxes. I think this might make it more palatable to the legislators and give a place for a fresh start with room for upward growth. With the state putting off things like roads and bridges and making cuts to education, I doubt they are going to be too excited to returning to the 50% subsidy they were offering.

We definitely need the Iowa Film Office back no matter what happens and I encourage you to continue sending messages to the governor to encourage that. I do think we need some sort of incentives to encourage producers to shoot in Iowa because without one Iowa is going to be a tough sell. Even if a film does come here, without some sort of incentive producers will not have an incentive (there's that word again) to hire Iowa cast and crew, except for the smallest of jobs.

That's all, unless something new comes up.

Question Time

Pointed questions about the situation surrounding the Iowa film tax credit scandal

The Tom Wheeler trial as well as the other trials that have taken place due to the Film Tax Credit scandal have answered a lot of questions but not all, and have raised many more. There are many pointed questions I can think of that I would like to ask the various people who had a part in creating the problem. (Asking these questions with the aid of a pointed stick would be especially satisfying.)

To Michael Blouin, the first head of the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) that Tom Wheeler served under (during the Vilsack administration) I would like to ask this:

Why did you hire Tom Wheeler in the first place while ignoring the 40 or so other applications for the job of Iowa Film Office manager? You didn't renew the contract of previous Film Office manager, Steve Schott, and instead appointed Tom Wheeler without any review of the many applications. Why?

While there may have been applications in the pile of people that were just as qualified as Wheeler, there likely were people with better experience, yet you skipped over these people. Tom Wheeler's experience in the film business consisted of working as a Production Assistant at Fox Animation in the Editorial Department. Did you even bother to find out what this job entailed?

A Production Assistant (PA) is the lowest rung on the ladder. These are the people who get the coffee and do the filing. Tom Wheeler never was on a motion picture or television set, never worked on locations, never dealt with film budgets, and never did many of the things that he would later be asked questions relating to when he went to work for you. He was having trouble with the job long before the film tax credits entered into things or before you moved on to another position elsewhere.

So, tell me again why you hired him? Was he someone's well-connected relative? Did one of your bosses tell you to hire him and to pay no attention to all the other applicants?

I really want to know. Please tell me.

To the members of the Iowa Legislature:

My question to you is not why did you pass the film tax credit bill? With the competition from other states for film projects and the dollars they brought, passing this bill made perfect sense. No, my question - questions, actually - to you are these: Why did you write a law that concerned taxpayer dollars with such vague language? Why did you not include funding or qualified staffing to adequately administer such a program? And finally, why are you now pretending that you had nothing to do with it?

Both major political parties in both houses passed it with a majority voting for it. Now, rather than showing any true leadership and fixing its flaws, you prefer to pretend that it doesn't exist and hope that it will simply go away.

To Michael Tramontina, the second director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development that Tom Wheeler served under:

Just where were you during this big mess? Sleeping at your desk? Were you really so clueless as to think the Film Office was just some fun little tourism thing and that the film tax credits were just some vague abstract thing that the legislature had talked about once? And why did you panic and resign once the issue of luxury cars came up? (Note to self: If ever visiting Beverly Hills with Mike Tramontina, don't go anywhere near a Rolls-Royce dealership. It could give him a heart attack!)

If Tom Wheeler was unable to handle the film tax credits himself, why did you let him? Why didn't you provide staffing for him? And if you didn't think he was the man for the job, why didn't you replace him? You know, division heads have that power. Why didn't you use it?

To Tom Wheeler, the now former manager of the Iowa Film Office:

While I know you suffered greatly through the ordeal of being fired from your job and through the time of your trial (they don't call them "trials" for nothing!), to say nothing of your time at the Iowa Film Office, there are still questions that need to be asked.

Why did you not seek more help from the film community during your term as manager when it became apparent that you were in over your head? I am not just asking about the time when the film tax credits became part of the job. I'm talking about your whole term as manager. Why did you mostly rely mostly upon the internet for information when you could have called people in the know directly who could have given you much more informed answers? There is a lot of information on the internet, true, but it is by no means complete nor necessarily accurate. Was it a puffed up sense of pride from having your first well paying job and a "I can do it all myself" attitude that made you approach your job this way?

And when the film tax credits came into being and your higher ups not only refused you the money and the proper staffing to administer it - in fact cut your Film Office budget - why didn't you just quit? It certainly would have appeared the honorable thing to do and in truth would have been. You could have possibly used your Film Office credentials to find another job in the film industry. Why did you try to be a hero when you were so obviously unprepared and unarmed for the situation?

To Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General:

Why didn't you provide any legal assistance to the Iowa Film Office during the time of the film tax credits? Were you somehow expecting Tom Wheeler to know all about this subject or about the law in general? Why did you allow your office to be used as a tool to make Tom Wheeler a scapegoat and deflect attention from the other responsible parties who should have known better? Why did you make it your job to protect the powerful in state government at the expense of Iowa taxpayers?

To Chet Culver, former governor of Iowa:

Did you pay any attention at all to what was happening in the various departments under your care, or were you too busy keeping up with the doings of the Green Bay Packers? Why did you decide to make no effort at all to fix the film tax credit program problems once you awoke from your slumber? To use words you might understand, why did you forfeit the game when it was still only at the beginning of the first quarter after noticing that the score was not in your favor?

You could have frozen the film tax credit program for only a limited period of time - time enough to regroup, fire whoever needed to be fired, hire whoever needed to be hired, do whatever triage necessary to get things moving again, and then work with all the parties involved to fix the problems for good. You can walk and chew gum at the time, can't you? (Don't answer that!)

Instead, you froze everything for essentially forever with no attention given whatsoever to the possible consequences of your actions. Then you had the nerve to try to use it as an issue for your re-election campaign with your tough guy declaration about Iowans not being made into suckers.

Are you surprised you lost the election? I'm not.

To the great silent majority of the Iowa film community:

I'm talking about those who simply sat back while this whole thing was going on without raising a finger to fight back for a chance for a satisfying way to make a living. Why didn't you do anything? What was so important that you couldn't even take 5 minutes to write a legislator or send a "letter to the editor" expressing your thoughts? There were plenty of you around when times were good. You were lining up at the craft service tables, grabbing the pay checks, the glamor of the visiting celebrities, and enjoying the camaraderie of the set. But when all of this was threatened you decided to hang back and let others do the leg work. Why?

The few who did try to do something and did speak up need more than the occasional "Atta boy!" from you. The need more than a "thank you". They need more than an apology from all above. They need their lives and opportunities restored. Who is going to do it for them?

To all of those I've referred to above and to all of those reading this article:

The problem with the film tax credit scandal is that it just didn't affect the Iowa Film Office, it didn't just affect the well being of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, and its effects did not stop at the Culver administration. It affected the whole state of Iowa and in its wake took down several other Film Offices and film incentive programs in other states. It put a black eye on Iowa in the eyes of the rest of not only the country but of the world and not just in the film community.

Film producers no longer trust the State of Iowa for anything. Who can blame them?
In the film community what happened as a result of the film tax credit scandal was the equivalent of the dropping of an atomic bomb. Iowa may as well contain deadly radiation as far as they are concerned. Nobody wants to film in Iowa any longer, at least professionally anyway. The fallout is going to last years, if not decades to come.

Mike Tramontina - Not the first time he's left a mess behind.

Here is a very interesting item that was in the September 24, 2009 issue of Des Moines CityView in their "Civic Skinny" column. Apparently what happened with the Film Office wasn't the first mess that Mike Tramontina had left behind and escaped from.

What it said:

"The hurried “resignation” of Iowa Economic Development Director Mike Tramontina surprised folks who have watched his career. A lifelong bureaucrat, Tramontina had a survivor’s instinct almost unparalleled in the state. The single biggest screw-up in the not-very-many-screwups administration of Tom Vilsack was the hiring — for millions of dollars — of A.T. Kearney to find efficiencies in state government. It was ill-conceived and badly implemented, and it accomplished little if anything. Tramontina, who was then running the Iowa Department of Management, was “driving that bus,” in the words of one guy who followed it closely, but when the shooting and the shouting were over, it was Mollie Anderson of the Department of Administrative Services who eventually left.

Most folks assumed Tram would leave at the end of the Vilsack reign — the Culver people have little use for anyone associated with Vilsack — so it was a surprise when Tramontina ended up with the plum $145,000-a-year job at Economic Development. He wasn’t the first choice — UNI’s Randy Pilkington, and perhaps others, were sounded out — but he got the job, and Culver called him “a proven leader.” It was under Tramontina’s watch that the IDED was roundly criticized by the state auditor for failing to monitor, verify and assess a jobs-training program the community colleges run to help lure and keep businesses. It was fraught with, at best, sloppiness — at worst, negligence. But he sidestepped that one, too. Last week, the nimble Tramontina did his best to shift blame in the mess over film tax credits that led to his resignation late Friday. On Wednesday, he sent a cover-your-ass memo to his board and the Governor’s office noting that he had discovered these irregularities and laying out his plan of action. But it was too little, too late. By Friday evening, he was toast.

The lesson, says one pol: “If you’re going to fuck something up, don’t do it in an election year.” Even if you’re Mike Tramontina."

Apparently Tom Wheeler isn't the guy that prosecutors should really be going after. Tramontina is.

Tom Wheeler and the "Incompentence" Issue

Two articles in the last two days have brought up the issue of incompetence in regards to Tom Wheeler:

Former IDED Chief: Wheeler wasn't qualified to run incentive program
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/08/25/former-ided-chief-wheeler-wasnt-qualified-to-run-incentive-program/

Our View - Dialing back the cinematic vision for Iowa
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110826/OPINION03/108260303/Our-View-Dialing-back-cinematic-vision-Iowa?odyssey=nav|head

The first is about Mike Blouin, Wheeler's first boss at the IDED being on the stand as a witness and the other is about the Landlocked Film Festival going on at the same time as the trial. Both bring up the idea that Tom Wheeler was incompetent in the most unflattering terms. Let's take a look at the idea of incompetence and see what it really means and see who really deserves the term.

When you look at State Film Tax Credits, it is a relatively new thing - certainly for Iowa. They just have not been around that long and the people who would already have most of the experience are already working - for OTHER states. When something is new, everyone in it is "incompetent". When airplanes were first invented, you can bet that the Wright brothers didn't have a lot of flight hours under their belt when they flew that first plane at Kitty Hawk.

It's well established that Tom Wheeler did not have training in legal contracts or in accounting. There were others at the IDED and in other areas of state government who did and didn't exercise their responsibilities. It is to those people who the term incompetence, in the worst sense, should be applied. And the term should be applied most of all to former governor Chet Culver. From evidence brought up at the trial I could see that Tom Wheeler and to some degree his bosses WERE trying to close the loopholes and make the program work as intended but it was Culver who decided to freeze the whole thing forever instead of allow it to be fixed and decided to turn it into a political football.

I've noticed that there have been a number of people who wish to throw Tom Wheeler under the bus. We've been experiencing this with this trial where the operative word is "persecution" not "prosecution" and I've noticed it in our own film community, such as there is of it. I've heard it mentioned that there was a lot more going on as far as abuses that is being reported with an evil eye directed toward Wheeler. So far at this trial most of the abuses have been those we've known about. At the emergency IMPA meeting I attended there certainly seemed to be a willingness to make Tom Wheeler the sacrificial goat from some parties there. It is just so easy to point fingers when you don't know the facts.

Here is what I believe, given the facts I am aware of:

Tom Wheeler was in over his head and did not have training in legal contracts or in accounting. There was way too much paperwork to sort through, even if he would have had those skills. He wasn't receiving the full support he needed with either additional qualified staffing or support from others in state government. No efforts were made to understand what was going on in his department by those whose responsibility is was to know - his bosses. They just left everything to Tom and forgot about it. ("Ignorance is bliss.") And finally you had someone deciding the fate of the whole thing who knew next to nothing about it and made no effort to - Governor Chester Culver and the results were similar to letting loose a monkey with a hammer into a china shop.

Brother: Tom Wheeler wanted to leave Iowa Film Office

by Rod Boshart/SourceMedia News for the Cedar Rapids Gazette, August 23, 2011, 5:59 pm

DES MOINES – David Wheeler testified Tuesday he advised his younger brother in 2009 to “hold on” as manager of Iowa’s Film Office given the tough economy even though he was swamped with what defense attorneys are portraying as a burgeoning though poorly structured state tax-credit program for which he was not adequately trained or staffed to run.
“I remember specifically writing to him: ‘Tom, it’s tough out there. I would hold on.’ In retrospect, I wish he wouldn’t have taken my advice,” he told a nine-woman, three-man Polk County jury during the second week of Tom Wheeler’s trial on charges of felony misconduct in office, first-degree fraudulent practices and conspiracy related to his work at the film office prior to his September 2009 termination.
David Wheeler, a Norwalk native who now lives in Spruce Pine, N.C., and operates an event management company, said he had several “chats” with his brother about leaving the post in the Iowa Department of Economic Development to pursue other options, but he told Tom to keep his job for the time being due to the tight employment market.
“He was very upset. He was working his tail off,” said David Wheeler, who struggled to keep his composure during about four minutes of testimony. “Our father had died the year before and he never really had time to deal with that, and the bottom fell out and here we are today.”
David Wheeler told jurors he is paying for his brother’s defense because “Tom’s been out of work and he’s got nothing left.”
The testimony came on a day when prosecutors rested their case after showing a brief video of Tom Wheeler making a presentation to California moviemakers touting Iowa’s film tax credit program as half-price filmmaking that provided a 25 percent tax credit for production expenditures made in Iowa and a 25 percent tax credit for investors for projects that spent at least $100,000 in Iowa.
Prosecutors have painted Wheeler as “an inside man” who allegedly helped filmmakers fraudulently obtain state tax credits for bogus claims, inflated expenses and unqualified purchases. They contend he used his position in the film office to help filmmakers improperly benefit from the tax credit program by knowingly altering and substituting public documents, and by knowingly approved false and inflated expenses submitted to the film office.
Defense attorney Angela Campbell worked to dispel that image by calling witnesses who praised the former film office manager as friendly, professional, ethical and honest.
“I felt that he was a straight forward, honest guy,” said Joel Sadilek, a former Cedar Rapids resident who works as a movie line producer in California.
Sadilek said Wheeler never suggested anything untoward to skirt the program’s rules during the two films he worked on in Iowa, but he conceded during cross examination by prosecutors that some of the rental costs approved by Wheeler for other projects that qualified for tax credits were excessive – examples such as $450 to rent two shovels for six weeks or $250 for a rake.
Among the six defense witnesses to testify Tuesday was Donald Schnitker, a special agent of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, who helped probe the film office operations after former Gov. Chet Culver suspended the tax-credit program when allegations surfaced of lax oversight, sloppy bookkeeping and questionable expenditures that included two luxury vehicles that were taken to California for personal use. After the scandal broke, six people lost their jobs within the economic development agency, including Wheeler.
Campbell produced a bank statement seized by DCI agents and asked Schnitker: “Sir, can you tell me where in that exhibit it demonstrates that Mr. Wheeler was getting paid on the side, getting a bribe or otherwise improperly benefitting from the film tax credit program?”
“There’s no evidence of that in this bank account,” Schnitker replied. He also said DCI agents were unable to locate any other bank accounts held by Wheeler.
“So, either Tom Wheeler is so talented at hiding bank accounts or he doesn’t have another one,” Campbell noted.
“Correct,” the DCI agent said.
Campbell also talked about 32 boxes of materials investigators seized from the film office and asked Schnitker: “Sir, can you tell me where in those boxes you found evidence that Mr. Wheeler was improperly benefitting from his work at the Iowa Film Office?”
“Monetarily benefitting?” he replied.
“Yes,” Campbell said.
“That wasn’t found,” Schnitker testified.

Interview with Kent Newman from the weekend

There was an interesting interview with Kent Newman, the former president of the Iowa Motion Picture Association (Jay Villwock is the new one) about the current state of Iowa's film industry. It was on KCCI-TV's Newsmakers program.

Here's a link to Part One of the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDUK1Q6HK7M

and here is link to Part Two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyO8MxEzQmA

Iowa's film program costs near $1.5 million with deal

From the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110810/NEWS10/108100311/-1/GALLERY_ARRAY/Iowa-s-film-program-costs-near-1-5-million-deal):

Iowa's film program costs near $1.5 million with deal
by Lee Rood

Producers of the 2009 movie "Smitty" reached an agreement this month with state prosecutors to receive cash and tax credits, pushing the taxpayer tab of court settlements tied the collapse of Iowa's film program to almost $1.5 million.

Under the agreement, makers of the family feature film starring Peter Fonda, Mira Sorvino and Louis Gossett Jr. will receive more than $265,000 in tax credits and almost $60,000 cash.

Jeff Thompson, a deputy state attorney general, said settlements with the makers of "The Crazies" and "The Experiment," two films whose expenses are being audited by the state, are expected to eventually be the largest reached. A handful of others could still receive tax credits.

Several filmmakers had yet to receive credits when the lucrative film incentive program was suspended in 2009 due to abuse and mismanagement. A state audit released in 2010 found 80 percent of the tax credits awarded before the program collapsed - some $26 million of $32 million - were issued improperly.

The state paid $450,000 this year to Midsummer Films, a film company that was planning to spend millions in Iowa before the program was abandoned. The company planned to make six movies, to be filmed over three years, that were worth an estimated $60 million to $70 million.

Late last year, the state also paid a $434,171 cash settlement to After Dark Films. The amount was on top of $315,828 in tax credits previously awarded to the company, which made the horror movies "Husk" and "Fertile Ground."

Next week, Tom Wheeler, former manager of the state's one-man film office, will face charges of felonious misconduct in office, first-degree fraudulent practices and conspiracy. He has pleaded not guilty.

Dennis Brouse, 60, of Plattsmouth, Neb., the owner of Changing Horses Productions, is scheduled for trial March 15.

Chad Witter, 38, of Bettendorf, a tax credit broker accused of helping several filmmakers abuse the program, is scheduled to go to trial April 16.

Harel Goldstein - also known as Harel Gold and Kevin Ward - of Calabasas, Calif., has been charged with first-degree fraudulent practices, forgery and conspiracy. Goldstein, 50, is a movie distributor and was producer of the film "Underground." He has yet to appear in court.

Tom Wheeler trial finally underway

After being delayed 4 times at least, the trial of Tom Wheeler looks like it may be finally beginning, according to this article on WHO-TV's website:

http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-film-head-court-date-20110804,0,6415666.story

There seems to be a feeling from many people that the idea of this trial is to "throw Tom Wheeler under the bus" and leave higher-ups of his from the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) and members of the Culver administration, including former Governor Chet Culver himself, unscathed by the scandal with total blame assigned to Wheeler. We'll have to stay tuned to see how all of this plays out. Besides the Tom Wheeler trial, there are 3 other known trials that have been reported by the press.

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.

Positive News?

In the Des Moines Register article linked below, candidate for governor, Terry Branstad and others are open to revising the Iowa film credits. Chet Culver. the incumbent, of course is still committed to ending them.

"Branstad, others open to revise film credits"
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100913/NEWS10/9130317/1007/news05/Branstad-others-open-to-revised-film-credits

One idea mentioned in the article which is troubling if you think about it is to limit the credits to films with "Iowa-type stories" such as "The Bridges of Madison County". This, although it would make sense to legislators who still consider the Film Office to be part of tourism, would not make a lot of sense in regard to the practical realities of attracting film and television productions. In case the legislature hasn't checked, most stories are not set in Iowa and to limit it to this state would limit the films shot here. It would also chase away films that could be shot here because of locations that are similar to other areas of the country. It would set Iowa back even further than it was before the film credits when the only productions that would even consider shooting here were those that needed either a small town location or a farm. Considering the fact that the movie "Aaseamah's Journey" built an Iraqi village set on Iowa land, this idea of limiting film awarded credits to those Iowa-centric stories lacks imagination.

Hopefully the film credits will return, will be written well, and run correctly without any limited ideas hampering their effectiveness like this "Iowa stories only" idea.

Should Iowa Film Tax Program Get Second Chance?

Here is a news story on KCCI-TV's website about film incentives resuming for existing projects and the general situation. There is a text version of the story along with video for it:

http://www.kcci.com/news/24915843/detail.html

Culver comments in a clip included in the story, "We're not going to be taken for suckers, people unforgivably exploited that program." I ask, did any of the people who got jobs on the films that shot here and got paid for it feel like suckers? Did any of the hotels where film personnel stayed, or local businesses that sold to the films feel like suckers? Governor Culver was obviously sleeping on the job as any problems with the program developed and now that he's been shaken from his slumber he is "hrumpf!" outraged, simply outraged that anyone would dare take advantage of the holes that he and the legislature so nicely provided for them. Rather than admit mistakes and attempt to fix them he would rather freeze and then try to kill the program since it appears too taxing on his intellectual capabilities to find a way to fix the problems and make it work.

Iowa "Blacklisted"

Here's a link to a news story on the WOI-TV website where they have talked to Neil Wells:

http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13108181

He says that Hollywood has blacklisted Iowa. I doubt it is much of an exaggeration considering how everything has been handled by Governor Culver and other officials.

Film Credits Continue?

Here's a link to a WOI-TV news story about the Iowa Film Tax Credits supposedly continuing for projects already in the pipeline:

http://www.myabc5.com/global/category.asp?c=190187&clipId=5084156&topVideoCatNo=165457&autoStart=true

The big question is, has anyone actually seen any evidence that any production is going to happen? Other than volunteer type productions there hasn't been anything this summer.

Are We Doomed? Part 2

Gene just quoted an article from today's Des Moines Register that inferred that Terry Branstad would probably not be supporting film tax credits. Here is a link to the article so you can read it for yourself:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100818/NEWS09/8180366/Branstad-would-cut-Iowa-Department-of-Economic-Development

Where does that leave us? Talk about us being between a rock and hard place! If the incumbent is re-elected and a new film bill comes up we know we can probably count on him getting out the old veto pen and Culverizing it. If Tweedledee is the choice, he'll probably be grasping at that same writing instrument. Some choice!

I'm planning to do a symbolic vote myself and do a write-in for Tom Wheeler. At least we know he is for film and it might send a message to both the winner and the loser of the election that we're here and we mean business.

"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.

The Big Question - Will They Return?

Here is a great Letter to the Editor from the creator of this blog that is in The Des Moines Register:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100810/OPINION04/8100333/1038/Will-moviemakers-return-to-Iowa?

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