Why Donald Trump wants to raise a large tariff in the film industry

When William Wyler prepared Roman vacation In the early 1950s he had the idea of ​​making the film in Italy, not on a studio backlot as almost all Hollywood films were back then.

Paramount images, the Italian Ministry of Tourism, opposed pretty much every resistance. But Wyler insisted on it, and so we tear Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck through the streets of Rome on a Vespa among many legendary scenes from Princess Ann through the streets of Rome.

Why on behalf of the Piazza Navona I bring a film almost three quarters ago? Because it was at that moment and at the moment of Quo Vadis Shortly before it was born modern global Hollywood. The shooting of overseas became a regular thing for US studios, first in Italy, then in England. In the 1990s, both Britain and Australia were actively trying to lure productions with incentive packages, and Hungary, Spain and other European countries complained in the 2000s. So much that we now have the perfect opposite of the Wyler situation: Studios and foreign governments ask that films are being shot overseas after overseas, and the directors have to fight if they want to shoot in the USA

This means that until Sunday evening, when Donald Trump tried to turn the clock back and undo it about 75 years of history. With the blunt instrument of a tariff, he would like to bring us back to South California backlots more often at these pre-Wyleric times, or at least the US state that the US state currently offers the most generous tax incentives.

“The film industry in America dies very fast death,” he wrote about social of truth. “Other countries offer all possible incentives to move away from our filmmakers and studios from the USA. Hollywood and many other areas in the USA are destroyed.”

He explained his wish for a “100% tariff on all films in our country that are produced in foreign countries” – an unaffordable number, since no studio has this kind of margin – said Trump, “he had approved the Ministry of Commerce and the United States' sales representative to start immediately with the institute,” said the tariff.

The post started a disturbing pinball under the glass table from Hollywood, even when a Trump spokesman the plan seemed to go back shortly afterwards. All discounts that get production through shooting in overseas, be it due to the relative weakness of a local currency or the incentives that a government offers, would not mean anything compared to this draconian punishment. And so Trump's logic goes, studios will only bring all the productions that you have outsourced to these banks. Voila, thousands of crew jobs and economic advantages restored.

In a way, this is exactly the same logic that drives so much of the tariff movement – and all related questions. Does a punishment for shooting in overseas really mean that much more film and television production will now take place in the USA? Or does it just mean that there will be less production overall? Both are possible, but you cannot downplay the latter scenario. The reality of a quickly shrinking release shief, Studio executives, appears plausible, will simply decide to further shorten instead of maintaining the same output at higher costs. Just as it is difficult to relieve Apple and Nike's objections that you cannot make your products without overseas, and now have to reduce or increase prices, Studios managers will be the repetitions and Wall Street intermediate that they are fighting tariffs or increasing the prices themselves.

But here end comparisons with other products. The messages have interpreted the question of how Trump can even enforce the tariffs in a service (there is no entry port for the beginning). But it seems to be an even more fundamental question, a distinction that Trump either knows or is not important to know.

For example, if you talk about an iPhone compiled in China, it is really made in overseas. The design has been rendered for a long time and the workers only assemble parts. But that doesn't happen in a Hollywood or even American indie film. Since each film is its own start -up creation, it remains a US product that is not available where it ends up shooting. The script is often written here, the project is being developed here, the actors are occupied here and notes are given here. The idea that a film that was made in Europe is somehow like an iPhone or a few nikes overseas “after overseas”, and take into account how the development of a Hollywood film works and how American it is, regardless of where cameras roll.

Of course, it is possible that Trump understands this and still progresses. What does the question arise, what Trump is really up to – does he try to save Hollywood or screw it in a phrase? He said in the White House on Tuesday that I don't want to hurt the industry. I want to help the industry. “But whose industry? Certainly he doesn't seem to be interested in helping be Hollywood. All three handpicked “ambassadors” of the president would suffer from the tariffs. Mel Gibson is preparing to shoot his new one Passion of Christ Film in Italy (in the same studio as Roman vacation), Sylvester Stallone has just released his England Shot action film A working man that he wrote and produced together, and Jon Voight mentioned hardly any tariffs in his own new plan; It is unlikely that he doesn't want that either.

Many of Hollywood's allies on the Capitol Hill would also score a goal. Adam Schiff Democrat of California's California worked hard behind the scenes for a federal tax credit – an ascent that wants to avoid perception of the arts – but would be effective in the restoration of production.

“I share the government's wish to bring the film back to the United States,” Schiff said in a statement The Hollywood reporter on Monday. “While flat -rate tariffs have unintentional and potentially harmful effects for all films, we have the opportunity to work together to adopt a large federal tax credit to create American jobs in the industry.” Later a day, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, said that he is also working on such a proposal.

Newsoms and ships are music for Bob Igers ears. That is what studios really want and may need – an incentive to shoot here, not a stick of rapping them if they don't. But if there is a willingness to apply these funds, Trump still has to show it.

Instead, Sean O'Brien, the head of the Teamsters, who maintained a relationship with the president, seems to be the person he seems to hear. On Monday, O'Brien and the chairman of the Motion Picture Division, Lindsay Dougherty, were one of the few leading personalities with Hollywood connections to publicly offer applause for what Trump did. The interests of the teamers can match and explain Trump's own – a populist step that punishes Hollywood elites on behalf of his workers.

When Wyler prepared for shooting Roman vacation In Italy, one of the most important concessions he made was to shoot in black and white. This decision reduced the costs for the studio; Now the film could afford to film in a more expensive place in overseas and not be missing for authenticity.

Trump plays again that the studios find a way to reduce their costs so that they can shoot more expensive somewhere, this time not in the name of authenticity, but in employment. It's a risky bet. When it comes to cheaper foreign locations, Hollywood executives, like Princess Ann, may not know how to say goodbye or have the budgets.