It is worth starting by sketching the situation. The White House generally presents duties as a way to reduce the US trade deficit. However, in the case of movies, the United States records a surplus: according to the Motion Picture Association industry organization in 2023 it amounted to $ 15.3 billion. [57 mld 613 mln zł]. Export was three times higher than imports.
Apart from logical inconsistencies, there is a practical issue of imposing fees on something that is not transported by ship or physically does not go through customs control. The valuation of content available on online platforms is an art in itself, and producers are reluctant to introduce subscriptions: Netflix needed years to deal with sharing passwords.
Investors certainly did not expect Netflix to feel the effects of this decision. The actions of the American streaming service initially fell on Monday after the announcement of the message, but since then they made up for the losses. In Great Britain, Facilites by ADF shares, a company providing transport on film plans, fell by 16 percent. from the beginning of the week.
AA / Abaca / PAP
Director Ali Abbasi at the premiere of his film “Chosen”, London, Great Britain, October 10, 2024.
Perhaps Trump's real goal are tax breaks and other incentives that foreign countries, including Great Britain, offer Hollywood to attract them. The universality of this practice indicates the perceived value of the development of a thriving creative industry. Take, for example, South Korea, which has built a powerful soft force thanks to series such as “Squid Game” and the awarded Oscar “Parasite” [“Pasożyt”].
The United States could follow in their footsteps or alternatively look for other sources of financing to support independent producers. One of the options considered in Great Britain is, for example, the use of streaming services by taxing their revenues, which would result in subsidizing high -quality public television. The risk, of course, is that some governments are willing to make financial support dependent on taking into account or avoid specific types of content.
Continuation of the material under the video
However, British production and logistics should not be deleted yet. The reason why American filmmakers willingly transport a team and equipment to the other end of the world are lower costs that help them balance expenses. “Barbie” was not the only character who built her pink plastic house in Great Britain. Last year, Great Britain earned almost 5 billion pounds [ponad 25 mld zł] on Hollywood hits shot in British film studios.
If it wasn't for this, the story would go according to the predictable scenario. The continuation – or rather the prequel – began last month, when China responded to the first wave of duties' increases, reducing the slight contingent of American films. America risk losing one of the few advantages, and the increase in production costs will not make Hollywood great again.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
