Latest news with #BeverlyHillbillies
Scoop
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
On Surviving Trump's Trip To La La Land
The film industry was probably naive to think it would be spared from Donald Trump's war on globalisation. If you believe Trump, every dollar being spent on foreign film crews, FX houses and film locations, every dime being spent by 'runaway' film productions on foreign accomodation and food, is money being stolen right out of America's pocket. It doesn't seem to matter that the end product – the films enjoyed by audiences worldwide – regularly deliver surpluses back to the American economy. Nor does it seem to register with the White House that Hollywood movies – and especially the ones shot on foreign locations with an international cast – are among America's prime sources of soft power, right up there alongside blue jeans and Taylor Swift. This is a direct consequence of the fact that one of the world's most beloved forms of entertainment is usually being experienced through an American lens. Regardless, Trump has never liked Hollywood much. The feeling has been pretty mutual. To the neo-Nazi wing of the MAGA movement, Hollywood is a cesspool run by moneyed Jewish elites intent on corrupting America's youth with messages of nihilism and depravity. Routinely, Hollywood has responded with similar disdain. On screen, the hillbillies that J. D. Vance once described as friends and family have tended to be treated either as comic relief (eg the Beverly Hillbillies TV show) or as banjo-picking creatures of menace, as in the movie Deliverance. Decades ago, director Joe Dante amusingly set the carnage in his Gremlins 2 movie within a fictional Clamp Tower in New York City, a building shown as being owned by an idiotic narcissist called Daniel Clamp. All of that baggage aside, it still seems batshit crazy for Trump to claim that films made in foreign countries pose a threat to Hollywood's existence, and therefore to America's national security. Reportedly, the US film industry amassed circa $US30 billion in revenues last year, and while movie theatre audiences have still not returned to pre-Covid levels, the only part of the industry that is in terminal shape are the movie theatre chains. That's why at this year's Oscars ceremony, director Sean Baker urged people to go back to watching movies in theatres, because their existence was in peril. Ironically though, US movie theatres stand to be the sector of the industry that would be the hardest hit by any tariff-inflated rise in ticket prices. Trump's hyperbole though, is mainly just a means to an end. The existence of an existential threat is necessary for Trump to be able to invoke the sweeping powers available to the US President under either the International Economic Emergency Powers Act or the Trading With The Enemy Act. Yet even if Trump could manage to mount a credible case that foreign made films do really, truly pose an existential threat to the United States, tariffs are not one of the remedies listed under those laws. is still pretty unclear on what legal basis Trump could create a tariff regime for the film industry. Films are IP, and are not goods that you can require a film studio to slap an extra entrance fee on as they cross the US border. To date, the details of what, how and when of the tariff plan are still to emerge from the White House – so any implications for New Zealand's film industry will not be known for some time. What, how? Presumably any entirely foreign made film entering the US market to compete for US eyeballs will have the 100% tariff slapped on its entire production budget. The trickier problems will arise when a nominally US production – or a film, say, co-financed by a combination of US and foreign backers – has also used foreign locations, multiple foreign government subsidies, foreign actors, film crews and FX houses etc en route to completing the final film. Untangling the offshore elements in a major film's budget would be a logistical nightmare. The more likely scenario is that the tariffs would be levied on the extent of subsidies provided by foreign governments that went into the film's production budget. Globally, some of these subsidies can come in the form of up-front tax write-offs, and some (as in New Zealand's case) are rebates offered subsequently as a fixed percentage of what the film production can show it has spent within the local economy. Countries as varied as Ireland, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, Britain, Romania, Hungary etc offer versions of these subsidies. No doubt, foreign subsidies do compete directly with similar film subsidies offered by many American states, including California. Obviously, Trump's tariff plan is an attempt to bring the 'runaway' US film productions back home. Historically, this is not an entirely new idea. As Variety magazine pointed out this week: When Canadian film subsidies were a new phenomenon in the late 1990-s and early 2000s [when our tax subsidies for Lord of the Rings were also being created] some of the more militant elements of Hollywood's labour movement called for 'countervailing tariffs' against studios filming in Canada. The idea was that such a tariff would bring jobs back to the US by offsetting the benefits of the subsidies. At the time, this idea never got traction. To the wider industry, the benefits of foreign government subsidies plus foreign locations, reliable film crews and FX houses and cheaper labour costs, carried the day. Looking ahead, what would help the US to become significantly more competitive would be if the Trump administration offered federal film subsidies to augment the state subsidies. Perhaps, the federal subsidies could be targeted at US post-production FX houses, in order to encourage digital advances that could have crossover benefits for US business, and/or for the US military. However, federal subsidies for Hollywood seem to be highly unlikely under the Trump administration. Besides, they would need Congressional approval. Why has Trump gone down this road? There have been two immediate catalysts. Tariffs got a brief mention by Jon Voigt, one of Trump's 'special ambassadors' to Hollywood (the others are Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone!) in Voigt's report to the White House last week on the film's industry's future prospects. Trump double and triple downed on the idea. The other factor was that China, in its initial response to the US barrage of tariffs, had indicated an intention to reduce the number of US films granted access to Chinese audiences. As Trump tries to pay China back, the rest of the world is now at risk of being collateral damage. Implications for NZ Obviously, if tariffs deterred US film productions from using NZ locations, crews and FX houses, this would be detrimental to the country's hospitality sector, as well as to all the current sectors of the film industry, in terms of jobs and lost opportunities for upskilling. Heretical though to be to the centre right, the film subsidies – both the early tax breaks, and the subsequent large budget rebate scheme – have been crucial to building one of the very few world class, value-added sectors of the New Zealand economy. To date, there has been no word from Sir Peter Jackson on the Trump announcement. Presumably, and like everyone else, Jackson is waiting on further details of the proposal, and some assessment of its feasibility and likely commencement date. Whatever transactions in a film's value chain do eventually get singled out as Ground Zero for the Trump tariffs, you can bet that Hollywood – the citadel of creative accounting – will be doing its best to mitigate the impact both on itself, and on any allies offshore that it deems to be essential. For the meantime, no-one can stop Trump from subjecting America to yet another exercise in self-harm. In a sense, the film tariffs are a mirror for the wider disruptions in global trade. Thanks to Trump, New Zealand's export sector is having to insert itself into new global supply chains. Likewise if the film tariffs ever do come to fruition, our film industry is going to have to hedge its bets, and look to the film industries of India and China and in the global South, in order to make up the difference. Crisis = opportunity. Hooray for Hollywood !! Robert Altman may have used the following song as bitter irony in the finale to his movie The Long Goodbye, but the original is beyond satire. The weirdness really kicks in at the 2.49 mark in this clip from the 1937 movie Hooray For Hollywood:
Scoop
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
On Surviving Trump's Trip To La La Land
The film industry was probably naive to think it would be spared from Donald Trump's war on globalisation. If you believe Trump, every dollar being spent on foreign film crews, FX houses and film locations, every dime being spent by 'runaway' film productions on foreign accomodation and food, is money being stolen right out of America's pocket. It doesn't seem to matter that the end product – the films enjoyed by audiences worldwide – regularly deliver surpluses back to the American economy. Nor does it seem to register with the White House that Hollywood movies – and especially the ones shot on foreign locations with an international cast – are among America's prime sources of soft power, right up there alongside blue jeans and Taylor Swift. This is a direct consequence of the fact that one of the world's most beloved forms of entertainment is usually being experienced through an American lens. Regardless, Trump has never liked Hollywood much. The feeling has been pretty mutual. To the neo-Nazi wing of the MAGA movement, Hollywood is a cesspool run by moneyed Jewish elites intent on corrupting America's youth with messages of nihilism and depravity. Routinely, Hollywood has responded with similar disdain. On screen, the hillbillies that J. D. Vance once described as friends and family have tended to be treated either as comic relief (eg the Beverly Hillbillies TV show) or as banjo-picking creatures of menace, as in the movie Deliverance. Decades ago, director Joe Dante amusingly set the carnage in his Gremlins 2 movie within a fictional Clamp Tower in New York City, a building shown as being owned by an idiotic narcissist called Daniel Clamp. All of that baggage aside, it still seems batshit crazy for Trump to claim that films made in foreign countries pose a threat to Hollywood's existence, and therefore to America's national security. Reportedly, the US film industry amassed circa $US30 billion in revenues last year, and while movie theatre audiences have still not returned to pre-Covid levels, the only part of the industry that is in terminal shape are the movie theatre chains. That's why at this year's Oscars ceremony, director Sean Baker urged people to go back to watching movies in theatres, because their existence was in peril. Ironically though, US movie theatres stand to be the sector of the industry that would be the hardest hit by any tariff-inflated rise in ticket prices. Trump's hyperbole though, is mainly just a means to an end. The existence of an existential threat is necessary for Trump to be able to invoke the sweeping powers available to the US President under either the International Economic Emergency Powers Act or the Trading With The Enemy Act. Yet even if Trump could manage to mount a credible case that foreign made films do really, truly pose an existential threat to the United States, tariffs are not one of the remedies listed under those laws. is still pretty unclear on what legal basis Trump could create a tariff regime for the film industry. Films are IP, and are not goods that you can require a film studio to slap an extra entrance fee on as they cross the US border. To date, the details of what, how and when of the tariff plan are still to emerge from the White House – so any implications for New Zealand's film industry will not be known for some time. What, how? Presumably any entirely foreign made film entering the US market to compete for US eyeballs will have the 100% tariff slapped on its entire production budget. The trickier problems will arise when a nominally US production – or a film, say, co-financed by a combination of US and foreign backers – has also used foreign locations, multiple foreign government subsidies, foreign actors, film crews and FX houses etc en route to completing the final film. Untangling the offshore elements in a major film's budget would be a logistical nightmare. The more likely scenario is that the tariffs would be levied on the extent of subsidies provided by foreign governments that went into the film's production budget. Globally, some of these subsidies can come in the form of up-front tax write-offs, and some (as in New Zealand's case) are rebates offered subsequently as a fixed percentage of what the film production can show it has spent within the local economy. Countries as varied as Ireland, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, Britain, Romania, Hungary etc offer versions of these subsidies. No doubt, foreign subsidies do compete directly with similar film subsidies offered by many American states, including California. Obviously, Trump's tariff plan is an attempt to bring the 'runaway' US film productions back home. Historically, this is not an entirely new idea. As Variety magazine pointed out this week: When Canadian film subsidies were a new phenomenon in the late 1990-s and early 2000s [when our tax subsidies for Lord of the Rings were also being created] some of the more militant elements of Hollywood's labour movement called for 'countervailing tariffs' against studios filming in Canada. The idea was that such a tariff would bring jobs back to the US by offsetting the benefits of the subsidies. At the time, this idea never got traction. To the wider industry, the benefits of foreign government subsidies plus foreign locations, reliable film crews and FX houses and cheaper labour costs, carried the day. Looking ahead, what would help the US to become significantly more competitive would be if the Trump administration offered federal film subsidies to augment the state subsidies. Perhaps, the federal subsidies could be targeted at US post-production FX houses, in order to encourage digital advances that could have crossover benefits for US business, and/or for the US military. However, federal subsidies for Hollywood seem to be highly unlikely under the Trump administration. Besides, they would need Congressional approval. Why has Trump gone down this road? There have been two immediate catalysts. Tariffs got a brief mention by Jon Voigt, one of Trump's 'special ambassadors' to Hollywood (the others are Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone!) in Voigt's report to the White House last week on the film's industry's future prospects. Trump double and triple downed on the idea. The other factor was that China, in its initial response to the US barrage of tariffs, had indicated an intention to reduce the number of US films granted access to Chinese audiences. As Trump tries to pay China back, the rest of the world is now at risk of being collateral damage. Implications for NZ Obviously, if tariffs deterred US film productions from using NZ locations, crews and FX houses, this would be detrimental to the country's hospitality sector, as well as to all the current sectors of the film industry, in terms of jobs and lost opportunities for upskilling. Heretical though to be to the centre right, the film subsidies – both the early tax breaks, and the subsequent large budget rebate scheme – have been crucial to building one of the very few world class, value-added sectors of the New Zealand economy. To date, there has been no word from Sir Peter Jackson on the Trump announcement. Presumably, and like everyone else, Jackson is waiting on further details of the proposal, and some assessment of its feasibility and likely commencement date. Whatever transactions in a film's value chain do eventually get singled out as Ground Zero for the Trump tariffs, you can bet that Hollywood – the citadel of creative accounting – will be doing its best to mitigate the impact both on itself, and on any allies offshore that it deems to be essential. For the meantime, no-one can stop Trump from subjecting America to yet another exercise in self-harm. In a sense, the film tariffs are a mirror for the wider disruptions in global trade. Thanks to Trump, New Zealand's export sector is having to insert itself into new global supply chains. Likewise if the film tariffs ever do come to fruition, our film industry is going to have to hedge its bets, and look to the film industries of India and China and in the global South, in order to make up the difference. Crisis = opportunity. Hooray for Hollywood !! Robert Altman may have used the following song as bitter irony in the finale to his movie The Long Goodbye, but the original is beyond satire. The weirdness really kicks in at the 2.49 mark in this clip from the 1937 movie Hooray For Hollywood:
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Sheryl Crow Praises Kelly Clarkson's 'All I Wanna Do' Kellyoke Cover as 'Better Than Mine': 'Good Grief'
There's a lot of love between Sheryl Crow and Kelly Clarkson. For the Kellyoke segment of the April 8 episode of The Kelly Clarkson Show, the Grammy-winning American Idol alum performed a cover of Crow's 1994 hit "All I Wanna Do" — and earned high praise from the song's original artist herself. Clarkson's "All I Wanna Do" cover was sonically faithful to the original, but her signature powerhouse vocals took the country pop song to a new level and garnered Crow's attention. "Good grief," wrote Crow in a comment on Instagram. "@kellyclarkson could sing the damn phone book! I love this version better than mine!!" After performing the song, Clarkson spoke about the Tuesday Night Music Club track and gave Crow her flowers. "'All I Wanna Do' was the breakthrough hit on her debut album, which also led Sheryl to win her first three Grammys in 1994," she said, referencing the "Everyday Is a Winding Road" singer's best female pop vocal performance, record of the year and best new artist wins. "I'm such a fan," added Clarkson. "She's been such a cool artist to me from the beginning." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. In an interview with PEOPLE at the 2025 Grammy Awards in February, Crow looked back at her decades-long career and shared what it felt like to win big for the first time. "Thirty years ago, here in Los Angeles," she reflected on the red carpet at the Arena. "It was a game changer." Related: Sheryl Crow Recalls Her Very First Grammys: 'It Was a Game Changer' (Exclusive) The "If It Makes You Happy" artist also reflected on her very special date. "I had my 85-year-old grandmother, who had never been in a limousine. I mean we were like country. We were like the Beverly Hillbillies, right?" said the Missouri native. 'It was a big deal.' Crow is scheduled to perform shows throughout North America this year, starting with the Boston Calling Festival on May 23 and continuing through Oct. 18 at the Ridgefield Playhouse in Ridgefield, Conn. Clarkson, on the other hand, has two shows at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Atlantic City, N.J. on May 9 and 10. She'll then perform a residency in Las Vegas from July 4 through Nov. 15. Read the original article on People
Telegraph
03-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Support dogs in the dock confirm what babies we've all become
Anyone else out there too scared to turn on the telly come teatime? Make yourself known, friend. Have you swapped the Today programme for Smooth FM, because Bonnie Tyler belting out Total Eclipse of the Heart reminds you of getting a 3am cab to the airport rather than imminent armageddon? Welcome. Come, share a safe space. And if you, too, react to the News at Ten music as though it were the terrifying opening credits of Doctor Who circa 1975, all plucked string baseline and swoopy oscillating menace, rest assured, there are a great many of us back here. No, not there, here. Here! Look! COO-EEE! Hiding behind the cushions on this great big existential DFS (Devastating Finale Sanctuary) sofa. So. Across the pond, the Beverly Hillbillies have rolled into Doge City and are parking their very own brand of bipolar politics on the free world's lawns. The international markets are at the volatile mercy of Trump's fiscal whims. Barely a day goes by without some horrendous natural disaster or callous act of obscene warmongery. And what are we doing here in Great (stop with the eye-rolling, kids) Britain? I'll tell you what we are doing, we are apparently bringing so many emotional support animals into our courtrooms that our creaking justice system has called a halt to the menagerie. Wait, what? Am I saying that even our (alleged) criminal classes are such big babies they can't make it into the dock without clutching a living plushie? Yes, yes I am. So much so, folks, that judiciary officials have taken valuable time out from despairing about the crumbling estate, the soon-to-reach 100,000-long backlog of unheard trials in England and Wales, the justice delayed and the justice withheld, in order to deliver guidance on dealing with the issue of disruptive and incontinent animals. (Insert tasteless joke about messy jailbirds here, if you must.) It seems a surge in defendants and witnesses seeking to bring along pets to help them cope with stress has led to 'untrained' animals jumping at or even attacking witnesses – including people who are scared of dogs or have allergies. Or, presumably, just want their day in court without being mauled by a mastiff. Is that too much to ask? Clearly it is in Spineless UK PLC. It's hard to understand where this ridiculousness comes from (the US, obviously, but more of that shortly), but thanks be to Dog, its days are numbered. Last year, at Grimsby Crown Court, defendant Vincent Harvey brought his nine-week-old Staffordshire terrier with him when he was sentenced to eight months in prison for dangerous driving. Cute? Not when the creature both urinated and defecated on the floor of the court's foyer after Harvey was sentenced. In 2017, Aidan Wiltshire, a transgender pensioner, was allowed to bring his pet cat to his trial at Chelmsford Crown Court to 'help calm his nerves'. Wiltshire, who had been living as a woman and calling himself 'Anne' at the time, relentlessly stalked two women; a city lawyer and a church minister. As he imposed the 18-month supervision order, Judge David Turner QC condemned Wiltshire's oppressive behaviour towards the two women: 'It affected their lives practically and professionally. It intruded into their privacy, it left them feeling besieged, controlled, manipulated, overwhelmed, at risk, hounded and anxious.' It strikes me that criminal justice was also being controlled and manipulated when Wiltshire refused to appear without his cat. But he was only taking advantage of the unhinged precedent set in 2016 by Judge Lynn Roberts, a family judge for Essex and Suffolk, who permitted dogs into Chelmsford County Court in what was a UK first. Apparently, the judge said she would have 'loved' to also allow donkeys into court but stopped short because of their size. The scheme there came to an end in 2019 when a new judge ruled against it – but it's self-evidently caught on elsewhere. As ever, ignorance rules; unlike guide and assistance dogs, emotional support animals do not share the same legal status. Taxis and shops aren't obliged to give them access. Landlords can refuse them – but medical magazine Pulse recently carried an article revealing that so many patients now ask their GPs for 'supporting letters' to justify their 'need' for such animals, family doctors have now been advised to charge a fee – or just refuse to write them. Back in the Halls of Justice, I can grasp why a vulnerable witness might benefit from the comfort a much-loved pet would bring, but even then, it's a hard sell. Why can't they keep it in the waiting room? Tied to the railings outside? In a horse box? Rumour has it that furry AI robots are being programmed to offer the same service, without the unpredictable bowel movements, which sounds just the ticket. Speaking of tickets, the whole concept of emotional support animals has been imported from America. There's a chap on TikTok who credits his emotional support 'cuddly' alligator with relieving his depression. And when Demi Moore lost out on the Oscars, comfort came in the form of ' emotional support Pilaf ' which turned out to be chihuahua, not dinner. But the tide has started to turn. As of 2020, America's Department of Transportation decreed that US airlines would no longer be required to transport emotional support animals after passengers insisted on bringing on board horses, pigs, peacocks and turkeys for psychological reasons. Only dogs qualify as service animals, although I'm not sure how many of us would be happy with a 8st cane corso occupying the middle seat. Or watching a defendant play with his puppy as he's sent down for a criminal offence. We are living through tough times as the Trumpian Tariff Tumult
