Blog

Steven Paul has been in Mar-A-Lago many times over the years. The producer and manager of Jon Voight’s lifetime was there again there last weekend, along with producer Scott Karol, to present President Trump in his plan to save Hollywood.

“I always enjoy being there and seeing the president,” Paul told Variety on Friday. “It is fun to see the amount of energy that the president has and how many things he is working simultaneously.”

Voight, the winner of the 86 -year -old Oscar, is one of the three “special ambassadors” in Trump in Hollywood. Paul is the “special advisor” of Voight and Karol is the president and operations director of the Paul’s company. Both have experience in gathering financing to film abroad, including a chain of recent Movies shot in Bulgaria.

Paul said they spent a “good amount of time” in Mar-A-Lago on Saturdays and Sundays. Trump’s conclusion of those meetings was that Hollywood is “dying” and that, with a pen blow, can do something about it. On Sunday night, Trump published in Truth Social that he authorized 100% tariffs on films produced in “foreign lands.”

That announcement caused a little monster worldwide the week before the Cannes Comience Film Festival. On Monday, the White House returned it. Trump then got into a dispute of several days with Governor Gavin Newsom, whom he called “incompetent” for allowing Hollywood’s work to disappear, before lighting his fire against the Emmys, who had nominated “60 minutes” for an award for interviewing Kamala Harris.

Meanwhile, Paul and Karol, who were making their first visit to the president’s house, have had a torbellino week. His scheme of the five -page policy, which contains numerous ideas, some more developed than others, was filtered to the deadline, which caused them to clarify that it was intended as a discussion document and not as a formal proposal. Legislators, unions and industry figures have gotten into the debate.

For Friday, not much was clear, apart from Trump believes that there is a problem and that all options are on the table. Paul and Karol agreed to talk to Variety – Perhaps under the impression that he was the Hollywood report, try to make sense of everything.

This interview has been slightly edited for clarity.

Steven Paul: First, I love The Hollywood Reporter.

You are talking with Variety.

SP: Very good, there you. You have been taking care of us and we have made good stories. So we are happy with Variety.

Well, I just want to choose your brain, I guess. You made a very complete proposal. It includes things like federal cinematographic incentives and Syn End rules and so on. Trump listened to that, and all that, he chose tariffs and said: “That’s what it is about.”

Do you think that means that you are not interested in the other things?

What I know is that the president loves the entertainment business, wants to see the healthy business and do not want the business to hurt. He wants to see Americans working here. He wants to see, as he said, a larger and better Hollywood.

Do you think the imposition of a rate to the films produced abroad is taken seriously?

I don’t want to talk about the president and say what he is thinking and not thinking. But I think that if it were just a rate for films in general, that could end up harming the industry instead of helping the industry. So I hope that is not her final conclusion.

Our idea, and what we were putting on the table were things that had a federal fiscal incentive and other tax things that can help motivate people to put money in movies and make productions work here in the United States.

And when you launched that to the president, what did he say?

His conclusion is that he would love to see the business prosper and do everything here. So how will you finally look? And now we are trying to gather everyone in our industry to help so we can see if we can do some important things at this particular time.

One of the things that jumped was the American cultural test. Great Britain has a cultural evidence in which they want to preserve British culture, obviously. How would that work in an American context?

SP: I don’t think we have details exactly how something like that would work. But the idea is, if you are filming here in the United States, make movies here in the United States and use Americans to do so. What other details, that would obviously have to be resolved.

Scott Karol: I just want to say that the vast majority of British “cultural tests” is not really a cultural test at all. You look at it, it is like “fired in the English language, using the British cast and crew, it takes place in the United Kingdom”, but the concept is a system of points such as what is used in many foreign jurisdictions for incentives. It is a point system. It really does not focus so much on culture as it focuses on elements of the country of origin.

Therefore, it is not about trying to promote “Yellowstone” or something that really speaks to the heart of America.

SK: It is not our intention to try to control the content. We want to bring film production to the United States.

In terms of their professional experience, it is very interesting that they are in a weekend in Mar-A-Lago talking to the president about these things. Corry me if I’m wrong, but it’s not as if you had been involved in public policies before.

SK: I am a lawyer. I have a finance title. I have been in the entertainment industry, in commercial and legal matters, production and finance and distribution for more than 30 years. I have been involved in productions in Kentucky, New York, California, Alaska … I have made international co -productions worldwide. So I have a soft money experience and tax incentives, which dates back for more than 30 years. And I am talking to people every day trying to make movies and collect financing for films and television programs. So I think I am uniquely located to talk about this subject.

And Steven?

SP: I am not a lawyer and I am not a politician, and none of those things, except that I have been working in the industry all my life, and producing films and financing them worldwide. So, yes, we have been involved in all these things, in, I do not mean all countries, but in many, many, in many countries around the world.

That experience abroad, I am sure, has given you a perspective of why productions go abroad.

SP: Unfortunately, we have been one of those who have also had to go abroad abroad. It simply happens. It is the brand or rest, whether you can make a movie or not make a movie.

As producers, we have to look at all these things and say: “Ok, where would it be the best place to make the movie?” We give: “Ok, it would be great if we can do it here.” But then we have to look, well, how do we finance it? Although we would love to film there, can we film it there?

And we say: “Oh, wow, we can’t understand how to film it there.” We have to find out where we can do it. And then, sometimes we have to discover how we alter the film a bit to work in that area in which we have to film it, just so that we can finance it. And I think that many especially independent producers, unfortunately, have to watch the movies in that way.

SK: That is also a study problem. We arrive at this mainly as independent producers, but the studies have the same problems. If you take a $ 100 million film, and there is a $ 15 or $ 20 million swing in the cost of production, that could be the difference between a film that is profitable or a movie that loses money. That is the reality that we all face.

So I understand the mechanics here: if you are a producer and you are thinking: “It’s fine, maybe I’m going to shoot abroad and give me an incentive of $ 10 million to do it.” Is it the idea of ​​a tariff like: “It’s okay, well, if I do that, now I’m going to have to pay a $ 12 million rate. So I could stay at home and shoot it here”?

SK: The idea behind what we proposed is: because we had heard of all the producers we talked to, each head of study and each transmission head, which all things are even close to being relatively the same, would always choose to film in the United States.

We do not want to institute some type of career towards the background, where we have this fiscal loan arms race. So, if we can put in a structure that reduces the net cost for the filmmaker and makes it a reality to film in the US that.

So that would neutralize the advantage of going abroad.

SK: Exactly.

SP: I mean something else with respect to that. The document we present was not really a proposal. It was presented as points of conversation, where you will assemble a role and say: “Here are all the thoughts that must speak.” Because some could contradict themselves, right? It represents many thoughts in that document. And as you can see, not everything could be practical.

What did you think when Newsom came out and said: “I hope the president works with me to make a federal incentive of $ 7.5 billion”?

SP: I don’t want you to get angry with me, because I am looking for some of these California tax credits at this time. But I have heard many people who are not happy with the program there. So I don’t know if that is the right program to copy for a possible federal tax credit.

But that is that number in dollars in the right stadium?

I don’t know if that would be the correct number.

Adam Schiff has also been working on this.

We have not had any conversation with him, but I have heard it. However, we have lunch with the mayor.

Karen Bass?

Yes. We enjoy lunch with her. She supported the industry a lot and wants to try to do everything possible, and I believe that. And I told her that I should organize the meeting with the governor and we, and she said she would try to do it, because we have not been lucky to see him.

Where did the tariff idea originate?

Well, he has been making rates, as you have seen.

Yes, it has been making rates. But nobody has tariffed a movie before.

I think it probably comes from the idea that if we make incentives and create incentives here, maybe there would be a way of penalizing an incentive there. It probably derives from something like that.

And if studies say: “Please, please, don’t do that,” I guess I would hear that. But who knows.

Again, I can’t talk about what I would do and what I wouldn’t do. But I know with certainty, he wants to help the industry and do the right thing.