When a rustic like Armenia sends a movie out into the world, it’s not simply artwork. It’s a approach to protect reminiscence, to achieve a scattered diaspora. Every movie presents the world tales that may in any other case be forgotten. So when President Trump proposes a 100% tariff on all movies “produced in international lands,” the injury isn’t restricted to international opponents or outsourcing studios. It threatens to close out small nations like Armenia, for whom cinema is a lifeline.
The proposal hasn’t taken impact — but. However July 9 marked a turning level in Trump’s broader tariff agenda, with a deadline for reimposing sweeping commerce penalties on nations deemed “unfair.” Whereas the state of affairs for movies stays unclear, the proposal alone has completed injury and continues to hang-out the business. The tariff thought arises from the worldview that treats worldwide trade as a risk — and cultural expression as simply one other import to tax.
Take “Amerikatsi” (2022), the extraordinary current film by Emmy-winning actor and director Michael A. Goorjian. Impressed by his grandfather’s escape from the Armenian genocide — smuggled throughout the ocean in a crate — the undertaking isn’t just a film; it’s a common story rooted within the Armenian expertise, made potential by worldwide collaboration and pushed by a deep private mission. Goorjian filmed it in Armenia with native crews, together with individuals who, months later, would discover themselves on the entrance strains of struggle. One was killed. Others had been injured. Nonetheless, they despatched him movies from the trenches saying all they wished was to return to the set. That’s the spirit a tariff like this is able to crush.
Armenia is a democracy in a harmful neighborhood. Its historical past is riddled with trauma — genocide, struggle, occupation — and its current is haunted by threats from neighboring authoritarian regimes. However at the same time as bombs fall and borders shut, its individuals create. Movies like “Aurora’s Dawn” (2022) and “Ought to the Wind Drop” (2020) carry voices throughout oceans, turning ache into poetry, historical past into cinema. These movies don’t depend on broad releases. They depend upon arthouses, festivals, streamers and distributors with the braveness and curiosity to take an opportunity. A 100% tariff would devastate that.
Certainly, the ripple results of such a tariff would upend your entire world movie ecosystem. Fashionable cinema is inherently worldwide: A Georgian director may work with a French editor, an American actor and a German financier.
So positive, many American movies use crew and amenities in Canada. However worldwide co-productions are a rising cornerstone of the worldwide movie business, significantly in Europe. Belgium produces as much as 72% of its movies in partnership with international nations, usually France. Different notable co-production leaders embrace Luxembourg (45% with France), Slovakia (38% with Czechia) and Switzerland (31% with France). These partnerships are sometimes pushed by shared language, which is why the U.S. can be often concerned in co-productions with Britain in addition to Canada. Israel too has leaned into this mannequin, utilizing agreements with nations similar to France, Germany and Canada to achieve entry to worldwide audiences and funding mechanisms.
The U.S. authorities can’t unmake this technique and shouldn’t strive to take action. To penalize “foreign-made” movies is to punish Individuals too — artists, producers and distributors who thrive on collaboration. You possibly can’t construct a wall round storytelling.
Supporters of the tariff argue it protects American employees. However Hollywood is already one of the vital globalized industries on Earth, and the concept it suffers from too many international movies is absurd. If something, it suffers from too few. The results of this coverage gained’t be a thriving home market — however a quieter, flatter, extra parochial one. A panorama the place the subsequent “Amerikatsi” by no means will get seen, the place a era of Armenian American youth by no means discovers their historical past by means of a film display screen.
If America nonetheless needs to guide within the twenty first century — not simply militarily and economically however morally — it ought to lead by means of tradition and keep away from isolation.
Tales like “Amerikatsi” remind us why that issues. A movie that begins with a boy smuggled in a crate throughout the ocean ends with a message of pleasure and resilience. That’s not simply Armenian historical past — it’s American historical past too. It can’t be separated. Except we wish that type of storytelling priced out of our cinemas (and off our streaming platforms), we should maintain the doorways open.
For America to show its again on tales like these could be a betrayal of every thing movie will be. And it might impoverish American society too. That method lies not greatness however provinciality.
Alexis Alexanian is a New York Metropolis-based movie producer, advisor and educator whose credit embrace “A League of Their Personal” and “Items of April.” She is a previous president of New York Ladies in Movie & Tv and sits on the board of BAFTA North America.
Insights
L.A. Instances Insights delivers AI-generated evaluation on Voices content material to supply all factors of view. Insights doesn’t seem on any information articles.
Viewpoint
Views
The next AI-generated content material is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Instances editorial workers doesn’t create or edit the content material.
Concepts expressed within the piece
- The article argues that President Trump’s proposed 100% tariff on foreign-produced movies would disproportionately hurt small nations like Armenia, whose cinematic output serves as cultural preservation and diaspora connection, slightly than being mere business merchandise.
- It contends that such tariffs would devastate the arthouse movie ecosystem, the place worldwide co-productions thrive (e.g., 72% of Belgian movies contain international partnerships), and the place tales like “Amerikatsi” – an Armenian-American collaboration – remodel historic trauma into common narratives.
- The creator asserts that penalizing “foreign-made” movies finally punishes American artists and distributors who depend on world collaborations, noting that fashionable cinema’s inherently worldwide nature makes isolating U.S. productions each impractical and culturally impoverishing.
- The piece frames cinema as a diplomatic lifeline for democracies like Armenia in risky areas, warning that tariffs would silence culturally important voices whereas contradicting America’s ethical management ambitions by means of cultural isolationism.
Totally different views on the subject
- The Trump administration justifies the proposed tariff as essential to fight “unfair competitors” from nations like Canada and the U.Ok., whose tax incentives allegedly lure U.S. productions overseas, threatening Hollywood jobs and nationwide safety[1][2].
- Proponents argue that outsourcing movie manufacturing hollows out home business capability, and the tariff goals to redirect funding towards U.S.-based infrastructure and employment, framing globalization as detrimental to American employees[1][3].
- Financial nationalists recommend decreased international competitors might strengthen home content material creation, with some analysts noting potential advantages for nations like Canada if U.S. insurance policies set off native content material booms to fill market gaps[2].
- The administration dismisses co-production arguments, emphasizing financial sovereignty over cultural trade and characterizing international subsidies as exploitative practices requiring punitive countermeasures[1][4].
