Still reeling from the effects of the pandemic, followed by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) strikes, and then the Southern California fires, the movie industry is now facing one of its greatest challenges of all: a clueless POTUS. He says he’s going to levy a 100 percent tariff or import tax on movies made outside the United States, although it’s unclear whether he means any American production that shoots footage beyond our borders, whether in part or in total, or movies made in other countries by foreign studios and exported here — or both. However he imagines it, this was a thoughtless, kneejerk proclamation that, if somehow enacted upon, will harm rather than help a business that’s already being tested by a number of factors.
It’s easy to see the political benefits reaped by a campaign that suggests the U.S. is getting ripped off by international forces — aliens of the cinema world who are being portrayed as considerably more unfriendly than E.T. Anyone benefitting from performative patriotism could use the supposition of a trade imbalance as another way to enflame a sort of cultural jingoism that feeds an “America First” agenda while ignoring the reality that the cost to produce feature films overseas can be much less expensive for studios and independent companies than at home. Complicating matters, states such as Louisiana, Georgia, and Michigan that offer tax breaks to studios and filmmakers continue to be more attractive places for certain movie projects than California, which may diminish the long-held perception of Los Angeles as the entertainment capitol of the world. Why institute tariffs when a move to encourage production tax breaks from every state in the union would be more … productive?
The notion that shooting movies in any country other than this one is harming Hollywood fails to take into consideration the quality and veracity of the finished product. Over the course of filming the last installment in the multibillion-dollar Mission: Impossible franchise starring Tom Cruise (to be released on May 23), the cast and crew aped the globe-trotting nature of the espionage blockbusters, traveling to and filming in a series of disparate and unmistakable locations, including Malta, South Africa, Norway, Italy, and the Lake District of the U.K. In pursuit of authenticity, the people behind Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning felt it necessary to eschew the green-screen CGI-enhanced soundstage sets, go to places the script demanded, and capture the action there. Regardless of how much profit is made from this particular chapter in the series, it seems counter-productive to try and punish Paramount with an import tax that will undermine the bottom line of a pricey, theatrically released blockbuster for an American corporation when the studio’s actions were in the interest of creating the best possible product.
Confounding calculations
With the heedlessness and lack of clarity that is emblematic of so many Trump pronouncements (such as his offhand call to turn flourishing Bay Area tourist destination Alcatraz into a working prison again after he watched a TV presentation of the movie Escape from Alcatraz), his call for that 100 percent tariff leaves us to wonder what the calculations would be for something like the current superhero hit Thunderbolts*. This latest Marvel Studios extravaganza was mostly lensed in the U.S., but some of its visual effects were done by Rising Sun Pictures in Australia. How much would the distributor (Disney) have to cough up to release a comparable film in the future? It might be necessary to establish a Board of Movie Tariffs that would develop a mathematical formula based on percentages to figure out how much would be assessed for those movies that were only partially fashioned overseas. Yes, a new government agency, even as DOGE is trying to eviscerate and close as many of them as possible.
Why institute tariffs when a move to encourage production tax breaks from every state in the union would be more … productive?
What’s the sense of even floating this tariff idea during a time when the American movie industry is facing so many problematic variables? Covid, strikes, and natural disasters aside, there’s the economic and creative conundrum of A.I. replacing humans in front of and behind the camera and the continuing impact of streaming platforms on theatrical distribution and box office profits. For that matter, the idea that a tariff on imported movies will enrich the country does not bother to factor in the artistic merit of top-tier movies from elsewhere nor the value of seeing depictions of life different from our own. Not to worry, because the latter is probably abhorrent to the isolationists and chauvinists dedicated to the whitening of the traditional American melting pot.
Consumer impact
The likelihood is that the imposition of a sizeable import tax would give stateside audiences fewer opportunities to see something like Caught by the Tides — director and screenwriter Jia Zhangke’s recent, fascinating narrative pastiche depicting the social, technological, and cultural evolution of mainland China over the past two decades. As for British movies that are so beloved by moviegoers, the made-in-another-country stipulation would presumably bring down the tariff hammer, English language dialog notwithstanding. So much for the latest period-costumed adaptation of a Jane Austen novel — and the charming modern-day rom-com Jane Austen Wrecked My Life, which is opening in U.S. theaters on May 23 and (uh-oh) was actually made in France.
All of this movie-tariff talk could be typical bluster from the present-day denizen of the Oval Office. Certain releases from favored nations might find themselves exempted from the payments. Or not. There’s also the question of how the tariff dictate might influence TV production and the streaming services, if they’re included. Made in Korea, Squid Game — the mesmerizing TV series about a deadly, clandestine winner-take-all competition — is a signature show for Netflix. And the U.K.’s intricately-plotted, darkly droll Slow Horses — following the hair-trigger adventures of a misfit crew of MI5 agents in London — is a staple of Apple TV. Both titles bring in subscribers. It would only be logical that a 100 percent tariff on any of these foreign shows would do what the same process does to other goods: hit the importers hard enough that the extra expense is passed on to consumers. Netflix, Apple TV, Disney+ and the rest of the streamers that rely on the global marketplace for movies and television programs have already progressively raised subscription fees. Neither the companies nor the customers want to pay more for the content they crave. It’s all too taxing.
