Can Cinema Really Threaten National Security?
As President Trump recently took to Truth Social to lament the state of the American film industry, his words were, as ever, laced with controversy and questionable assertions. Claiming that the industry was "dying a very fast death" due to nefarious tax breaks offered by other countries, Trump proposed a 100% tariff on films made overseas, labelling them a "National Security threat". But is there any substance to these claims, and could cinema really pose a threat to national security?
According to a report by The Guardian, Trump’s vision of a bygone era, when movies were shot on Hollywood backlots and cinema attendance was at its peak, is a nostalgic fantasy. The reality is that the film industry has evolved significantly since the 1950s, with international markets now accounting for over 70% of Hollywood’s box office revenue. As noted by The Guardian, this shift has led to a softening of the amount of American flag-waving on screen, with producers adapting to appease international censors.
One of the key concerns with Trump’s proposal is the impracticality of imposing a 100% tariff on films made overseas. As a White House official noted, "Commerce is figuring it out," but it is likely that lawyers would ultimately end up determining the feasibility of such a plan. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which grants the president authority to address national security threats, explicitly lists movies as an exception to presidential authority.
The Guardian report highlights the fact that many executives in Hollywood are quietly nodding in agreement with Trump’s sentiments, citing the significant decline in feature movie shoot days in Los Angeles. However, as The Guardian points out, this trend is largely driven by the lure of lucrative tax breaks offered by other countries, rather than any malicious intent to undermine American cinema.
The debate surrounding the impact of foreign films on national security is not new. In 1946, French director René Clair warned that France would become a "cultural colony of the United States" if it did not protect its film industry. Similarly, when Spielberg’s Jurassic Park stormed into French cinemas in 1993, French culture minister Jacques Toubon declared it a threat to French national identity.
However, as The Guardian notes, there is a wide gulf between "perceived national security threats" and "actual national security threats". Trump’s proposal to make American films great again would lump the US together with isolationist, authoritarian states such as China and Iran, which have strict controls over film content.
The Guardian report also cites examples of films being pulled or altered due to sensitivities around national security. In 2010, Avatar was pulled from Chinese theatres due to concerns over its themes of resistance to imperialism. In Iran, directors Maryam Moghaddam and Behtash Sanaeeha were sentenced to 14 months in prison for showing a heroine without a headscarf in their film My Favourite Cake.
In contrast, the US film industry has long been a global leader in promoting cultural exchange and understanding. As The Guardian quotes Bill Mechanic, CEO of Pandemonium Films, "I’ve produced or overseen hundreds of movies that were shot overseas… No foreign government has ever even commented on any political content in any of those movies. None has ever asked for any changes, and never proposed a single idea."
The implications of Trump’s proposed tariff are far-reaching and potentially devastating. As The Guardian notes, it would likely choke the already embattled business of theatrical distribution, annihilate the indie sector, and render most low- to mid-budget productions unfinanceable.
In conclusion, while Trump’s proposal may have been intended to bolster the American film industry, it is a misguided and potentially disastrous plan. As the film industry continues to evolve and become increasingly global, it is essential to recognise the value of cultural exchange and the importance of promoting understanding through cinema.
Source: The Guardian
