The latest installment of the Donald Trump Cinematic Universe has an audacious plot line: The protagonist wants to put a 100% tariff on all movies made abroad to restore a troubled American film industry to its former glory. But the critics aren’t impressed. “The idea is dumb,” Howard Berry, a film historian at Britain’s University of Hertfordshire, told CNN. “Tariffs aren’t going to revitalize a beleaguered industry in Hollywood. Tariffs are just going to make films more expensive to make, and so we’ll have fewer of them.” Last week, the American president said he had instructed US commerce and trade authorities to place the hefty levy on movies produced abroad to revive a “dying” Tinseltown. The announcement marks the first time Trump has targeted services rather than goods with his tariffs. Trump may be right about one problem: As countries such as Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom have lured US filmmakers with generous tax incentives, many Americans in the film industry have been left short of work. Major streaming platforms have also tightened their belts in recent years as they look to make a profit, rather than simply throwing money at new content to attract subscribers. But Trump’s solution — slapping tariffs on what is often the product of international partnerships involving American filmmakers — will be both hard to implement and ineffective, industry experts told CNN. Here’s why a return to Hollywood’s heyday may just be the stuff of movies. Defining an ‘American’ movie Much like an American car needs parts from abroad, so too do Hollywood films rely on people and places overseas — and increasingly so. Berry at the University of Hertfordshire gave the example of “Mission: Impossible — Fallout,” a 2018 film co-produced by companies based in the United States, China, Norway and France, with some scenes filmed in the UK. “You look at the opening titles and you see about five production logos before you get into the start of the film,” he said. “China’s Alibaba Pictures is one of the (logos) right up there at the front.” Kirsty Bell, the chief executive of Goldfinch, a British film production company, argued that the international nature of many movies makes it very difficult to pinpoint their country of origin. “If you shot a week in the UK, a week in America and a week in Canada, what nationality is the film? And then you do (post-production) in the UK. Where does that leave you?” she told CNN. High-profile examples of so-called “runaway production” — a term describing the flight of movie production from California, the home of Hollywood — can be found in the UK. “Wicked” and “Barbie,” two of the biggest blockbusters of recent years, were principally shot in studios in the south-east of England. According to the British Film Institute, last year, major American film studios and streaming platforms spent more than $1.8 billion producing movies in the country, a rise of 49% from 2023. Britain’s Sands Films is one beneficiary of spending by the US film industry. The film production company made the costumes for the 2019 movie “Little Women,” directed by Greta Gerwig. That film was “very American,” said Olivier Stockman, the company’s managing director. “Culturally, (it was) an American project, and it was shot in America,” he told CNN. “(But) they still ask us to make the costumes.” “(Americans) haven’t lost the position of being the makers or the funder of films,” he said, noting that the majority of companies buying services from Sands Films are American-owned. American films are simply no longer made “on American soil,” he added. Carrot, not stick Making movies is expensive and, if filmmakers can spend less money enlisting talented workers outside of America to shoot and edit their movies, that’s exactly what they’ll do, argued Berry, the film historian. The most effective way to bring productions back to Tinseltown, he said, is not to make it more expensive to produce films elsewhere (which would simply lead to fewer films being made) but to make it cheaper to produce in the area. Marina Hyde, the co-host of “The Rest is Entertainment,” a podcast focusing on the TV and movie industry, noted recently that labor costs in Hollywood are “very high.” “(Americans) don’t have universal healthcare, they don’t have a federal pension… so you have to keep wages high,” she argued on last week’s edition of the podcast. Jay Sures, vice chairman of California-based United Talent Agency, also told CNN that high labor costs and “lack of rebates” in the US mean it’s “infinitely cheaper” to make films overseas. Similarly, the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom said in October that, between 2020 and 2024, the state had lost TV and film production spending because of “limited tax credit funding” and “increased competition in other states and countries.” And last week, Newsom called on Trump to work with California to create a $7.5 billion federal tax credit for the movie and TV industry. Currently, tax incentives in the US are exclusively the realm of states and municipalities. Last year, film production in Greater Los Angeles fell 5.6% compared with 2023, as measured by the number of shoot days in the area, according to industry group FilmLA. Only 2020 — upended by the coronavirus pandemic — logged a lower level of production, it noted. However, that drop is only partly explained by “runaway production,” FilmLA said, with a slow recovery from 2023 labor strikes and a broader industry contraction also playing a part. Ben Charles Edwards, head of production at Goldfinch, the British film production company, thinks more incentives such as tax breaks would help entice filmmakers back to the area. Trump’s tariff threat is “potentially a knee-jerk reaction to an industry over there that isn’t the same as it once was,” he told CNN. “This isn’t the answer.”
Trump’s movie tariff plot twist: What’s a Hollywood movie anyway?
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Proposes 100% Tariff on Foreign Films to Support American Film Industry"
TruthLens AI Summary
In an unexpected twist, President Donald Trump has proposed a 100% tariff on movies produced abroad, aiming to rejuvenate the struggling American film industry. Despite his intentions, critics, including film historian Howard Berry, argue that such tariffs would only escalate production costs, ultimately leading to fewer films being made. Trump’s announcement, which marks a significant shift by targeting services instead of goods, comes in response to the challenges faced by Hollywood as filmmakers increasingly turn to countries like Canada and the UK for their favorable tax incentives. This predicament has resulted in a decrease in job opportunities for American film workers, especially as major streaming platforms become more budget-conscious. However, experts suggest that imposing tariffs on international productions, which often involve collaborations with American filmmakers, would be difficult to execute and counterproductive in revitalizing the industry.
The complexity of defining what constitutes an 'American' movie further complicates Trump's proposal. Many films rely on international partnerships, with production locations and post-production often spread across several countries. For instance, films like "Mission: Impossible – Fallout" showcase the global nature of film production, where multiple countries contribute to the final product. Industry leaders emphasize that rather than imposing tariffs, a more effective strategy would be to enhance the attractiveness of American production through tax incentives and lower costs. California Governor Gavin Newsom has highlighted the need for a federal tax credit to incentivize filmmaking in the US, particularly as the state has seen a decline in production spending due to competitive pressures and limited tax credits. The overall sentiment among industry experts is that while Trump’s approach may stem from a desire to protect American jobs, it misses the mark on addressing the root causes of the industry's challenges, which lie in high labor costs and a lack of competitive incentives domestically.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights a controversial proposal from former President Donald Trump regarding the imposition of a 100% tariff on foreign-made films. This plan is framed within a larger discussion about the challenges facing the American film industry, particularly in light of international competition and the shifting landscape of content production. Critics argue that the proposal is misguided and could lead to higher costs for consumers and fewer films being produced.
Objective Analysis
The intention behind this news piece seems to be to provide insight into the complexities of the film industry and the implications of Trump's tariff proposal. By including expert opinions and historical context, the article aims to inform readers about the potential ineffectiveness of such tariffs in revitalizing Hollywood. The emphasis on expert criticism suggests a goal of promoting a more nuanced understanding of economic policy and its real-world impacts on the film industry.
Public Perception
The article likely aims to create skepticism around Trump's proposal and the simplistic notion that tariffs could solve deep-rooted issues in the film industry. By citing film historians and industry experts, it reinforces the idea that economic policies need to consider the interconnected nature of global production. This could lead to a perception among readers that tariffs are not a viable solution and that they may ultimately harm the very industry they intend to support.
Potential Omissions
While the article presents a critical view of Trump's plan, it may not delve deeply into the underlying reasons for the struggles of the American film industry, such as changes in viewer preferences and the rise of streaming services. By not fully exploring these aspects, there is a possibility of oversimplifying a complex issue, which might obscure other critical conversations about the future of film production in the U.S.
Manipulative Elements
The article's manipulation index could be considered moderate. It uses expert opinions to challenge Trump's proposal, which is a valid journalistic approach. However, the language used to describe the tariffs as "dumb" could be seen as biased, potentially alienating readers who might support Trump's economic policies. The framing of the issue could influence public opinion by emphasizing negative consequences without balancing it with potential benefits that supporters might argue for.
Credibility Assessment
The information presented appears to be credible, given the inclusion of expert opinions and factual context regarding international film production. However, the framing and selection of quotes could indicate a bias against the proposed tariffs, suggesting that while the article is rooted in factual reporting, it also carries an editorial perspective.
Broader Implications
The discussion surrounding tariffs on foreign films could have wider implications for U.S. trade policies and international relations, especially with countries that have become key players in film production. If such tariffs were implemented, it could lead to retaliatory measures from other nations, impacting not only the film industry but also broader economic ties.
Audience Targeting
This article likely resonates more with audiences who are critical of Trump's economic policies or are interested in the intricacies of the film industry. It appeals to those who value nuanced discussions about economic issues and the cultural implications of film production.
Market Impact
The news could create ripples in the entertainment sector, particularly affecting stocks related to film production companies and streaming services. Investors may react to the uncertainty around tariffs, and companies with significant international partnerships might be particularly sensitive to any changes in trade policy.
Geopolitical Context
In a broader context, the article touches on the shifting dynamics of global media production and the implications for American cultural dominance. The conversation around tariffs reflects ongoing debates about globalization, protectionism, and the future of American business in an increasingly interconnected world.
Artificial Intelligence Considerations
While it is unclear whether AI was employed in writing this article, the structured presentation of information and analysis could suggest some level of algorithmic assistance. AI models that analyze sentiment and trends in media could have influenced the article's tone and focus, shaping its narrative direction.
In conclusion, the article provides a critical examination of Trump's proposed tariffs on foreign films, highlighting the complexities of the film industry and the broader implications of such economic policies. However, its framing and language may indicate a bias that could influence public perception of the proposal.