What Donald Trump Is Really After With Movie Tariffs

by

In the ancient times of the early 1950’s, when William Wyler was preparing the film “Roman Holiday”, he desired to film it in Italy rather than on a typical studio backlot like most Hollywood movies during that era.

Despite strong opposition from Paramount Pictures, the Italian Ministry of Tourism, and numerous others, Wyler persisted. As a result, we now have Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck navigating Rome’s streets on a Vespa, capturing many of Princess Ann’s memorable moments – all thanks to his relentless determination.

Opposition from Paramount Pictures, the Italian Ministry of Tourism, and others was fierce, but Wyler remained steadfast. This tenacity led to Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck riding a Vespa through Rome’s streets, immortalizing many of Princess Ann’s iconic scenes.

You might wonder why I’m referring to a film made over seven decades ago – “Quo Vadis”. Well, it was around this time that the foundation for modern global Hollywood was laid. Initially, American studios started shooting movies abroad, particularly in Italy, and later in England. This trend continued into the 1990s with countries like the UK and Australia offering incentives to attract film productions. By the 2000s, Hungary, Spain, and other European nations joined this movement. Now, the situation has reversed: studios and foreign governments are eager for films to be shot abroad, while directors sometimes have to argue to shoot in the U.S.

Until Sunday night, Donald Trump aimed to rewind history by about 75 years, attempting to roll back progress through the use of tariffs. His goal was to return us to an era reminiscent of a default movie set in Southern California or any U.S. state that currently provides the most attractive tax breaks.

He stated that the American Film Industry is rapidly declining. Other nations are enticing our filmmakers and production studios with various incentives, causing them to consider leaving the United States. This trend is adversely affecting Hollywood and numerous other regions within the U.S.

Trump announced his intention for “a 100% tax on all foreign-produced movies entering our nation,” a significant figure given no studios can afford such costs. He directed the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to commence the process of implementing this tax immediately.

1. The new policy unveiled a revolutionary pinball setup beneath a table in Hollywood, yet shortly after, a Trump representative seemed to retract the proposal. If enacted, this severe penalty would overshadow any savings from filming abroad, be it through currency weakness or government incentives. According to Trump’s reasoning, studios would then return all outsourced productions to our shores, creating thousands of jobs and generating economic advantages once more. Ta-da!

2. The initiative introduced a groundbreaking pinball game under a Hollywood table, but a Trump representative soon seemed to withdraw the idea. This harsh penalty could overshadow any cost savings from filming overseas, whether due to weak currencies or government incentives. Trump argues that studios will therefore move all outsourced productions back home, reinstating thousands of jobs and economic advantages in the process. Voilà!

3. The rollout featured a cutting-edge pinball machine concealed under a Hollywood table, only for a Trump spokesperson to later appear to rescind the plan. This stringent penalty might outweigh any savings from filming abroad, be it through currency weakness or government incentives. Trump contends that studios will consequently bring back all outsourced productions, thereby resurrecting thousands of jobs and generating economic benefits anew. Voilà!

4. The debut showcased a state-of-the-art pinball setup hidden beneath a Hollywood table, but a Trump representative soon indicated that the plan might be withdrawn. This stiff penalty could surpass any cost savings from filming overseas, whether due to currency weakness or government incentives. According to Trump’s logic, studios will subsequently return all outsourced productions home, leading to the reemergence of thousands of jobs and economic advantages. Voilà!

5. The roll-out presented a high-tech pinball installation hidden under a Hollywood table, but a Trump spokesperson soon hinted at possibly revoking the plan. This punitive penalty could eclipse any savings from filming abroad, be it through currency weakness or government incentives. In Trump’s view, studios will then relocate all outsourced productions back to our shores, restoring thousands of jobs and economic benefits in the process. Voilà!

The reasoning behind tariffs and their related issues is similar to this: Is imposing a penalty on foreign production going to make all movies and TV shows be produced in the U.S.? Or will it just lead to less overall production? It’s likely a combination of both, but we can’t ignore the possibility that there will simply be less production due to cost considerations. Given that the release schedule is already shrinking rapidly, studio executives might choose to reduce output even more rather than continue at a higher cost.

Just as I can’t ignore Apple and Nike claiming they need to offer overseas discounts to make their products cost-effectively, without which they might have to scale back or increase prices, studio executives argue that they’re dealing with tariffs by decreasing production or hiking up prices themselves when discussing this with agents and investors on Wall Street.

However, let’s move past the similarities with other products. A significant point that warrants attention is whether Trump truly understands, or chooses to ignore, a crucial difference between goods and services. For instance, services don’t involve a physical border crossing, which complicates the application of tariffs. This seems to be a fundamental question that may not have crossed his mind yet.

In discussing a product like an iPhone made in China, it’s accurate to say that it’s manufactured abroad, with workers assembling components based on designs created elsewhere. However, when it comes to movies, especially Hollywood or even independent American films, the scenario is quite different. Because every movie is essentially a unique creation, it can be considered an American product regardless of where it’s eventually filmed. The script is usually written in the U.S., the project is developed here, actors are cast here, and direction is given here. The notion that a film shot in Europe is completely “manufactured overseas” like an iPhone or a pair of sneakers fails to grasp or consider how a Hollywood film’s development process works, and how American its essence remains, regardless of where the cameras capture images.

It’s quite plausible that Trump is aware of the implications yet proceeding nonetheless, leaving one pondering Trump’s true intentions towards Hollywood – is it a rescue mission or a sabotage? To put it simply, is he trying to aid or undermine Hollywood? It doesn’t appear that Trump has any intention of assisting the Hollywood sector he is connected with. The tariffs would negatively impact all three of Trump’s appointed representatives. Mel Gibson is gearing up to film his latest movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” in Italy (the same studio as “Roman Holiday”), Sylvester Stallone has recently released his action flick, “A Working Man,” shot in England, and Jon Voight scarcely mentioned tariffs in his own plan; it’s unlikely he would welcome this either.

Numerous allies of Hollywood in Congress, particularly those on Capitol Hill, could also face setbacks. California Senator Adam Schiff has been tirelessly advocating for a federal tax incentive, albeit an arduous endeavor given the current political climate where the White House seeks to dissociate itself from any semblance of government aid to the arts. However, such a tax credit would indeed be beneficial in bringing production back to the table.

Schiff expressed agreement with the government’s aim to revive film production within the U.S.,” he said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter on Monday. “Although tariffs on all movies could lead to unwanted and harmful consequences, there’s a chance for collaboration to pass a significant federal tax credit for films, which could bring back American jobs in this sector.

Schiff’s words sound delightful to Bob Iger, as they reflect what studios are longing for – an inducement rather than a penalty for filming here. However, Trump hasn’t demonstrated a readiness to use such methods yet.

Rather than listening to another individual, it appears he’s tuning into Sean O’Brien, the head of the Teamsters, who has developed a rapport with the president. On Monday, O’Brien and Lindsay Dougherty, the leader of the group’s motion picture division, were among the select influential figures from Hollywood who publicly endorsed Trump’s actions. The Teamsters’ objectives might be in line with Trump’s — a populist strategy that targets Hollywood elites under the guise of protecting workers, with some veteran action stars unwittingly caught in the crossfire.

A crucial compromise that Wyler agreed upon, allowing him to create his film in Italy, was shooting it in black and white. This choice helped cut production costs for the studio, enabling them to film in a costlier foreign location while maintaining an air of authenticity.

Trump is once again wagering that film studios can reduce costs enough to shoot in pricier locations, this time not for authenticity but for job opportunities. It’s a daring gamble. When it comes to less expensive foreign countries, Hollywood executives might struggle to bid farewell, or lack the financial means.

Read More

2025-05-06 04:01