Visitors attending the Berlin Film Festival in search of a reprieve from the relentless presence of Donald Trump were sorely disappointed. The controversial figure might not don the Berlinale red carpet (unless invited, of course), but his influence permeated the atmosphere in Berlin.
On screen, filmmakers took jabs at the 47th U.S. President and his policies — Bong Joon Ho’s sci-fi satire Mickey 17 depicts zealous followers of a self-absorbed politician in bright red, MAGA-style caps; Michel Franco’s Dreams, which follows a Mexican ballet dancer crossing the border to be with his affluent U.S. girlfriend, serves as a direct critique of Trump’s immigration policies. Within the European Film Market, discussions surrounding Trump and his repercussions on the international film industry are unavoidable.
Production and sales companies express concern that Trump might target the film sector with potential tariffs and trade limitations, as he has threatened in other areas. A likely target could be U.S. productions opting to shoot abroad. This trend of runaway production is increasingly common, as expenses for filming in the U.S. continue to escalate.
“Everyone has been asking: Is it still safe to film in Mexico or Canada? The uncertainty is palpable,” says Josh Rosenbaum of Waypoint Entertainment, a production and financing firm involved with films like Longlegs, Mid90s, and The Favourite. “Honestly, it’s complete chaos. There are no clear regulations. While there are directives [from Trump], the implications remain uncertain.”
Various facets of the international film landscape could potentially provoke Trump’s attention. The issue of runaway production is complicated by enticing tax credits offered by numerous countries to attract U.S. films and series, possibly siphoning jobs away from American talent. Additionally, many nations provide substantial subsidies for their own films and series, which Trump could label as “unfair competition” and might target with restrictions or tariffs.
The U.S. film industry has long advocated for comparable domestic tax relief to counter the allure of overseas filming locations. In the lead-up to last year’s elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed increasing the state’s tax incentives for film and television production to $750 million annually to recover jobs lost to out-of-state and international productions. However, following the devastation wrought by the L.A. fires, the state government is understandably prioritizing city reconstruction over Hollywood subsidies. There has also been a push for federal tax relief or production incentives, but under a Trump administration, it appears unlikely that Washington would implement policies favoring the solid blue states of New York and California.
North of the border, in the territory Trump has dubbed the 51st state, the Toronto Film Festival has already begun formulating plans to counteract his influence. TIFF is set to launch an official content market next year and has started to assemble an advisory committee, which includes indie industry heavyweights like CAA’s Roeg Sutherland, Goodfellas CEO Vincent Maraval, Elevation Pictures co-president Noah Segal, and Rhombus Media founder Niv Fichman.
“TIFF has always been a hub for international collaboration and cooperation,” affirmed Judy Lung, TIFF’s vp, strategy, communications and stakeholder relations, sharing her thoughts with THR in Berlin. In this forthcoming time “of political and economic turmoil,” she emphasized the importance of Canada’s premier film event in “deepening and strengthening our global connections.”
A more immediate concern is the subject of censorship, particularly self-censorship, within companies following the MAGA wave.
“We have observed this preemptive yielding, as evidenced by various DEI initiatives that crumbled almost instantly, leading businesses and individuals to think, ‘I’ll adopt a passive stance first, then consider the long-term,’” director Todd Haynes, president of this year’s Berlinale jury, remarked to The Hollywood Reporter when questioned about the Trump administration. “Historically, we’ve learned that when you start to yield, you are not rewarded for submission. These individuals are insatiable.”
Caution may also manifest in avoiding films or themes likely to incite Trump and his supporters. The experience with Ali Abassi’s Trump biopic The Apprentice may serve as a cautionary tale. The film debuted to acclaim and an eight-minute standing ovation at Cannes last year and emerged as an awards contender, securing two Oscar nominations for Sebastian Stan as Trump and Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn, the manipulative attorney who educated the future president in the political arts during the 1980s. However, pushback from Trump’s camp nearly jeopardized the film’s success in the U.S. Just as The Apprentice was premiering on the Croisette, reports surfaced that the film’s primary financier, Kinematics — founded by producer Mark Rapaport, son-in-law of billionaire and noted Trump donor Dan Snyder — disapproved of Abbasi’s interpretation of the erstwhile president. The film faced a distribution deadlock until Tom Ortenberg’s audacious indie label Briarcliff Entertainment stepped in, alongside one of the film’s producers, James Shani, who agreed to co-distribute it in the U.S.
When contacted via email, Shani revealed that The Apprentice remains without a streaming deal in the U.S. “I believe we’re the only Oscar-nominated film lacking one, and it’s clear why,” he stated. “That’s an issue.”
The The Apprentice experience could serve as a stern warning for producers and filmmakers in Berlin: crossing Trump could be fraught with risk.
“There’s a genuine concern that U.S. distributors will shy away from any project perceived as anti-Trump or critical of MAGA,” one European sales agent confided to THR. “Even narratives surrounding immigration or trans rights could be deemed too perilous.”
