Hollywood is struggling, but some fear Trump’s foreign film tariffs might do more harm than good
At Sony Production studios in Culver City, an area of Los Angeles steeped in the movie business, a steady stream of cars and lorries comes and goes through the security gate.
It occupies the MGM lot which dates back to 1924. Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane were shot here and, more recently, Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises. But this is no longer the beating heart of movie making.
In Tinsel Town the bright lights of the film industry have been fading for some time. Production in Hollywood has fallen by 40% in the last decade, sometimes moving to other states like New Mexico, New York and Georgia, but more often outside the US entirely.
A recent survey of film and TV executives indicates that Britain, Australia and Canada are now favoured locations over California when it comes to making movies.
San Andreas, a blockbuster film about a California earthquake, was shot in Australia. In America, a film about an Irish family settling in New York, was shot in Canada.
Although about a California disaster, San Andreas was actually shot in Australia. Pic: Jasin Boland/THA/Shutterstock
Trump’s movie tariff could deal knock-out blow to UK film industry, union says
The exodus of the film industry from Hollywood is mostly owing to economic reasons, with other countries boasting lower labour costs and more expansive tax incentives. But as productions have moved overseas, studios across Los Angeles are frequently empty and those who work behind the scenes are often out of work.
President Trump has approached this problem with a familiar reaction – sweeping tariffs, a 100% tariff on all foreign made films coming into the USA.
‘It’s a different kind of situation than producing cars overseas’
Justine Bateman is a filmmaker and sister of actor Jason Bateman. She is glad Trump is looking for solutions but does not understand how the tariffs will work. “I will say, I’m very glad to hear that President Trump is interested in helping the film business. But part of the problem is we just don’t have very much detail, do we?,” she says.
“He’s made this big announcement, but we don’t have the detail to really mull over. He doesn’t even say whether it’s going to be films that are shown in the cinema or streaming movies, for example.
“Tariffs can be a profitable situation for when we’re just talking about hard goods, but something like a film and, particularly if you’ve got an American film that takes place in the south of France, you want to be in a particular location.
“So it’s a different kind of situation than producing cars overseas and bringing them back here.”
At the Hand Prop Room in Los Angeles, they supply props for TV and film. The warehouse is brimful of virtually any prop you could imagine, from portraits of former presidents, to replica handguns to African artefacts and 18th century teapots. The walls are decorated with posters from some of the productions they’ve supplied, including Babylon, Oppenheimer and Ghostbusters.
Reynaldo Castillo believes the tariffs could be harmful to Hollywood unless properly thought through
‘It needs to be thought through’
In the past five years, the prop shop has been impacted by the COVID pandemic, by both the writers’ and actors’ strikes and the globalisation of the film industry. Business is at an all time low.
“It’s not helping when so many productions are not just leaving the state, but also leaving the country,” says Reynaldo Castillo, the general manager of the Hand Prop Room. “It’s Hollywood, we have the infrastructure that nobody else has and I think maybe to a certain point we took it for granted.
“I think we can all agree that we want more filming to stay in the country to help promote jobs. But you also don’t want to do something to hurt it.
“How does it work? Are there exceptions for X, Y, and Z? What about independent movies that have small budgets that are shot somewhere else that would destroy their ability to make something? It needs to be thought through and make sure it’s implemented the right way.”
Jurors in the trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs have reached a verdict on four of the five counts against him – but the hip-hop mogul will have to wait to learn his fate.
In tense scenes towards the end of the court day on Tuesday, jurors sent a note to say they had reached verdicts on two charges of sex trafficking and two charges of transportation for prostitution, but had been unable to reach a unanimous decision on the charge of racketeering conspiracy.
Combs‘s lawyers surrounded him at the defence table after the note was sent to the court, and at one point he held his head in his hands.
After discussions with prosecution and defence lawyers, Judge Arun Subramanian told jurors to continue deliberating on Wednesday rather than deliver a partial verdict.
Combs and one of his lawyers, Marc Agnifilo, earlier in the day. Pic: Reuters/Jane Rosenberg
The jury has testimony from more than 30 witnesses to consider – including Combs’s former long-term partner Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and another former girlfriend called “Jane”, who testified under a pseudonym to protect her identity.
Prosecutors allege the 55-year-old rapper used his fame and power to force Cassie and “Jane” into drug-fuelled sex sessions with male sex workers, which were referred to as “freak-offs”, “wild king nights”, or “hotel nights”.
He was also physically violent and blackmailed them with footage, jurors were told.
They also heard from “Mia”, a former employee who alleged she was sexually assaulted by the rapper on several occasions during her career. She also testified using a pseudonym.
Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges and his defence team has argued that prosecutors are attempting to criminalise what they say was a consensual “swingers lifestyle”.
The rapper chose not to testify and his lawyers did not call any witnesses, building their arguments instead through lengthy cross-examinations of the witnesses called by the prosecution.
What is racketeering conspiracy?
Racketeering conspiracy, which is count one on the verdict sheet, is the most complicated of the charges against Combs.
Jurors need to decide not only whether the rapper created a “racketeering enterprise”, but also if he was involved in various offences as part of this, including kidnapping, arson and bribery.
The charge falls under the US’s RICO laws (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act), which is best known for being used in relation to organised crime and drug cartel cases.
Read more:
Prosecution’s closing argument
Defence’s closing argument
After closing arguments last week, jurors began deliberation on Monday and had spent about 13 hours discussing in total by the time they sent their note.
Before reaching the verdict on the four counts, they had requested to review crucial testimony from Cassie about her account of an assault in a hotel in Los Angeles in 2016.
Captured on CCTV, the footage was played in court several times – showing Combs, wearing only a towel and socks, beating, kicking and dragging Cassie in a hallway.
His defence team admitted in their opening statement that this was domestic violence, and said the music star regretted these actions – but that they did not amount to any of the federal charges against him.
Read more:
The rise and fall of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs
What we learned from Cassie’s testimony
As well as Cassie’s evidence on that assault, they asked to see her testimony on an incident at the Cannes Film Festival in 2013 – when she said Combs accused her of taking drugs from him and kicked her off of his yacht.
On their way back to the US, she told the court, he threatened to release explicit videos of her having sex with an escort.
Jurors also wanted to review testimony given by a male sex worker at the start of the trial.
Combs could face 15 years to life in prison if he is convicted of all charges.
Jurors will continue deliberating on the racketeering conspiracy charge on Wednesday.
Elon Musk has stepped up his attacks on Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill – weeks after a spectacular fallout between the world’s richest man and the US president.
Following weeks of relative silence after clashing with Mr Trump over his “big beautiful bill”, the billionaire vowed to unseat politicians who support it.
In a post on X, Musk said those who had campaigned on cutting spending but then backed the bill “should hang their heads in shame”.
He added: “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”
Musk also threatened to put their faces on a poster which said “liar” and “voted to increase America’s debt” by $5trn (£3.6trn).
The posts attracted a swift reply from Mr Trump, who claimed the billionaire “may get more subsidy than any human being in history” for his electric car business.
“Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Elon’s dad on the Musk-Trump bust-up
Musk spent at least $250m (£182m) supporting Mr Trump in his presidential campaign and then led the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sacked about 120,000 federal employees.
He has argued the legislation would greatly increase the US national debt and wipe out the savings he claimed he achieved through DOGE.
As the Senate discussed the package, Musk called it “utterly insane and destructive”.
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said the bill’s massive spending indicated “we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”
“Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,” he wrote.
Read more from Sky News:
Stab victim describes horrible reality of knife crime
Royal train to be scrapped with family to rely on helicopters
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
Musk previously said some of his social media posts during his dramatic fallout with Mr Trump “went too far”.
He had shared a series of posts on X, including one that described Mr Trump’s tax and spending bill as a “disgusting abomination”.
He also claimed, in a since-deleted post, that the president appeared in files relating to the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
But Musk later wrote: “I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.”
In response, the president told the New York Post: “I thought it was very nice that he did that.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike