Hollywood trade publications often draw attention to the film industry at risk: If there is a highly anticipated movie bomb at the box office, it is evidence that people no longer go to the theater. If the studio put a full movie on hold in exchange for tax reimbursement, then both commercially and artistically, this indicates a decrease in optimism about the movie. But on May 4, President Donald Trump suddenly announced the truth and socialized, it seemed shocking that he would issue 100% tariffs on all and all films made in foreign countries. According to the Post, his reason seemed to be his belief that “the American film industry is dying very quickly” and that the growth of filmmaking opportunities abroad is clearly at fault.
Observers can't fully tell what is the clear goal - American films shot overseas? Looking for international films released in the United States? Questions also arise about whether such tariffs can be enforced or what forms can be taken. Despite the confusion, the manifesto still seems to have had a devastating impact on many: "It's 'Everyone loses, no one gets the policy," one producer said of the possible consequences.
Like many Trump statements made via social media, it was withdrawn as appropriate and began in the next few days. A White House spokesman said no "final decision" was made on the tariffs. One day later, Trump told reporters: "I don't want to hurt the industry; I want to help the industry." Three days later, when a deal was announced with the UK, he clarified that "James Bond doesn't need to worry" and then mused on his personal friendship with the late actor Sean Connery. Those who condemn the beginning of new injuries that have been trapped in the troubled market can at least relax. But Trump seized on a potential existence panic: many of the biggest films in the United States are no longer made in the United States.
Perhaps this reality is why some major industry unions react to Trump’s position with soft support. "SAG-AFTRA supports efforts to increase film, television and streaming production. We look forward to learning more about the details of the president's announced plans and advancing dialogue to achieve our shared goals," the Actors Association said in a May 5 statement. The downline staff union wrote that Trump's plan needs to be "harmless to the industry's current business," but it shows that agreeing that Hollywood needs buoyancy. "Foreign governments have successfully attracted film and television productions, as well as the numerous jobs they create, away from tax benefits and subsidies in the United States," the union statement said.
Shortly after Trump's position, others claimed responsibility for its origins: Oscar-winning actor and Trump supporter Jon Voight, who was hired by the president to explore ways to strengthen the American film and television industry. The president's tariff comments were reportedly extracted from a broader list of recommendations drafted by Voight; the actor's business partner had served as consultant to the program, and he said it was "for discussion purposes only." However, the list of tentative solutions does have some specific suggestions in it, codified after Voight held a meeting of industry figures in Hollywood with anonymous. The imposition of tariffs on works created abroad is just part of a package of ideas he proposed to the president, from fantasy to practicality.
People on both sides of the political spectrum have leaped, and it is the overall idea to provide financial support for Hollywood to revitalize film production. The long-term focus of the cinema have Lots of opportunities are lost in the rest of the world: in Georgia and New Mexico, there are other major hubs, but in areas such as Europe and Australia, tax benefits are abundant and labor tends to be much cheaper. Even when American movies are made in the U.S., various elements of post-production, such as visual effects, can still happen abroad (as with many other industries, many of the forces of globalization are hard to hit. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who jumped around in the news cycle, proposed a $7.5 billion federal tax credit to inspire studios to create more work locally, which would be more than anything that the state level offers.
In his plan, Voight also made recommendations for these routes: 10% to 20% federal discounts that will stack with any existing state credit. In terms of punishment, American works that utilize overseas tax relief will be subject to tariffs of “equal to 120% of the value of foreign incentives.” Voight's outline doesn't specify how these tariffs are imposed; maybe the studio can absorb the costs themselves, but if not, it's hard to imagine they'd charge more for some drama releases, because they were only shot in Europe. Voight also recommends that all subsidized projects “meet the minimum threshold for the cultural test of the United States,” an idea borrowed from places like the UK, which plans to invest government funding channels into domestically made works to benefit the country in some way.
The United States is the leading exporter of films worldwide, which ranks within the country’s most certain and richest global product range, and is doubtful that producing them elsewhere is affecting the country’s strongholds. The location of the filming is rarely considered a matter of national pride, let alone for non-financial reasons. However, the lack of protectionism may be part of the reason why Jobs glided from Los Angeles. And the tariffs may encourage studios to shoot some projects in other cheaper places across the country, although even these costs are usually more expensive than those in other countries at present. However, such plans may also cause the industry to thrive. Studios are already struggling to rebound from the coronavirus pandemic and have had multiple strikes in the split media landscape, and may be totally reluctant to continue certain projects if the fees or fines seem to be high.
Other suggestions felt less relevance in Voight's packages, including the push to resume the now-discontinued TV broadcast regulations. It is unclear why Voight and his team's initiative for the extinction has declined, although like potential tariffs, some industry professionals have seen the enthusiasm to re-examine these regulations. This is the thing about the desire to “make Hollywood great again”: About the best action is the best course of action that stimulates the film industry. Divergent opinions left room for Trump’s messengers to hold hearings and start swinging ships. But even Voight himself seems to have rethinked the best way to guide it: On May 11, the actor and several industry union leaders submitted a letter to Trump, insisting on tax benefits, not to tolls.
The question of how outsourcing affects the economy is obviously an effective question. It is just that when it comes to American filmmaking, it is neither novel nor the biggest impact on the health of the industry. Decades have passed since the New Hollywood era, when every work in the Los Angeles area seemed to be happening. Perhaps a more pressing focus, especially for domestic audiences and studios, should be a dramatic decline. Instead, Hollywood is busy estimating a new alarm declaration.