Tsunami Film

[HarryHerb]

From The Daily Mail

A star-studded cast including Oscar-nominated actress Sophie Okonedo, Gina McKee, Tim Roth and Hugh Bonneville have been asked to appear in a two-part TV drama about the deadly Boxing Day tsunami.

The two 90-minute instalments, with the working title of Tsunami, are a fictionalised look at how the disaster affected a disparate group of people, from a couple on holiday (to be played by Ms Okonedo and Chiwetel Ejiofor if their deals are completed), a British diplomat parachuted into the area (Bonneville) and an aid agency official (Toni Collette).

Abi Morgan, who wrote the Channel 4 drama Sex Traffic, has written a screenplay that looks at how an earthquake in the Indian Ocean struck with such force that the clashing of tectonic plates sent destructive waves thousands of miles to batter coastlines in the region.

Politics of tourism

Morgan also tackles the politics of tourism — how governments in the area may have underplayed the imminent danger because of the mighty tourist buck — and then the snarled web of humanitarian aid agencies which weren't always in the right spot when they were most needed.

The cast, still being added to, fly out to Thailand after Easter to acclimatise themselves and then film the drama, which is a production from Kudos (the company behind Spooks and Hustle) for the BBC and America's HBO channel.

It's believed some 220,000 lost their lives in the tsunami, including 150 Britons.

Morgan's screenplay doesn't follow the nightmares of any real-life Britons involved in the disaster, as it would have been too distressing for their families.

It's going to be difficult enough for those who were affected by it to watch a fictionalised version.

Extra info: filming locations will be - get this - Krabi, Phuket, Khao Lak.

They have already started recruiting extras. The main cast is all western, but the poster says 'loads of people required of all nationalities to play victims' .

IMO, it's way too soon (tasteless), it's going to damage (even such a 'fictionalised' account) the tourist industry that's only just getting back up again, and they're making money out of something they shouldn't.

What do you reckon?

[Old Croc]

I suppose the question here is should, or when should, a great human tragedy be put to celluloid?

The same question is being asked about 9/11 as the first film is about to be released. This centers on the plane where the passengers fought back.

Should the story of one of the greatest tragedies in history be left for the bereaved to mourn or forget without the reminder of a Hollywood epic?

I don't know.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Old Croc

[britmaveric]

Disaster films make dosh, so until there is no dosh in it, this type of film will be made. Hopefully part of profits will go to charity.

[khall64au]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti..._a_source=&ct=5

Too bad the locals were not consulted... am sure the "true" experts popped up and the end product will be sensational-istically worth the advertisers dollars!

[LaoPo]

Tasteless....? Difficult to answer.

Most great disasters/tragedies have been filmed (later).

Look at the 'Titanic'...a worldwide blockbuster plus so many films about Vietnam, WW II, The Holocaust, 9/11 and so forth.

I'm afraid the same will happen with the Tsunami-movie.

LaoPo

[HarryHerb]

Tasteless....? Difficult to answer.

Most great disasters/tragedies have been filmed (later).

Look at the 'Titanic'...a worldwide blockbuster plus so many films about Vietnam, WW II, The Holocaust, 9/11 and so forth.

I'm afraid the same will happen with the Tsunami-movie.

LaoPo

That's my point - the films you are talking about were made years, decades after the actual event. In the case of 9/11, the first fictionalised account (nearly 5 years after) is causing scandal. With the tsunami, there are still people in temporary housing here, bodies unidentified - I feel it's all rather too soon to be cashing in with a TV drama.

The story, as far as I understand it, is told from a tourist's (not local) perspective and is likely to be critical of the Thai (lack of) action re: warning systems... no mention of charitable donations either (probably because the BBC already thinks of itself as a charity!!)

What I find interesting is that they're clearly concerned about "distressing" British families of victims, but don't think twice about using local people here to play the 'victims' - having said that, though, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will take the cash without a second thought, same as with the aid handouts after the event

(Khall, sorry for not putting the source, thanks for posting it )

[LaoPo]

Tasteless....? Difficult to answer.

Most great disasters/tragedies have been filmed (later).

Look at the 'Titanic'...a worldwide blockbuster plus so many films about Vietnam, WW II, The Holocaust, 9/11 and so forth.

I'm afraid the same will happen with the Tsunami-movie.

LaoPo

That's my point - the films you are talking about were made years, decades after the actual event. In the case of 9/11, the first fictionalised account (nearly 5 years after) is causing scandal. With the tsunami, there are still people in temporary housing here, bodies unidentified - I feel it's all rather too soon to be cashing in with a TV drama.

The story, as far as I understand it, is told from a tourist's (not local) perspective and is likely to be critical of the Thai (lack of) action re: warning systems... no mention of charitable donations either (probably because the BBC already thinks of itself as a charity!!)

What I find interesting is that they're clearly concerned about "distressing" British families of victims, but don't think twice about using local people here to play the 'victims' - having said that, though, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will take the cash without a second thought, same as with the aid handouts after the event

(Khall, sorry for not putting the source, thanks for posting it )

I didn' read the article yet but done so now.

I agree with your comments, especially when I read this from the article:

""Morgan also tackles the politics of tourism — how governments in the area may have underplayed the imminent danger because of the mighty tourist buck — and then the snarled web of humanitarian aid agencies which weren't always in the right spot when they were most needed.""

Cheap and easy to 'tackle' the governments... and than film your TV-program.....in 1 of the same countries (Thailand) where so many died.

LaoPo

[slackula]

From The Daily Mail

a British diplomat parachuted into the area (Bonneville)

So it's a comedy then right?

[thaibebop]

I am sure it will be an accurate hit just like the new 9/11 coming out, which I heard was going to use the real tape recordings for certain parts to add dramatic effect.

Movies should be made of certian events for in some ways, sadly enough, that's how younger generations will be exposed to the event. However, I feel they should wait a very long time, before they make a movie and hopefully view it with some hindsight, so there is more of a lesson then just money making.

[skylar]

Speaking of tsunami films, did anyone ever see a DVD of tsunami footage being peddled about? I'll be crass and say I did buy one, but I didn't understand the language the footage was narrated in. I am guessing the language was Indonesian. Does anyone know anything about it?

[thaibebop]

Speaking of tsunami films, did anyone ever see a DVD of tsunami footage being peddled about? I'll be crass and say I did buy one, but I didn't understand the language the footage was narrated in. I am guessing the language was Indonesian. Does anyone know anything about it?

My father-in-law bought one and brought it from Thailand when he came to visit. The one he had was in Thai and less than half way in to it we both decided it was done just to make money, we both hated it, and threw it away.

[britmaveric]

Speaking of tsunami films, did anyone ever see a DVD of tsunami footage being peddled about? I'll be crass and say I did buy one, but I didn't understand the language the footage was narrated in. I am guessing the language was Indonesian. Does anyone know anything about it?

My father-in-law bought one and brought it from Thailand when he came to visit. The one he had was in Thai and less than half way in to it we both decided it was done just to make money, we both hated it, and threw it away.

Watch discovery channel and Tsunami programs are rife.

[thaibebop]

Speaking of tsunami films, did anyone ever see a DVD of tsunami footage being peddled about? I'll be crass and say I did buy one, but I didn't understand the language the footage was narrated in. I am guessing the language was Indonesian. Does anyone know anything about it?

My father-in-law bought one and brought it from Thailand when he came to visit. The one he had was in Thai and less than half way in to it we both decided it was done just to make money, we both hated it, and threw it away.

Watch discovery channel and Tsunami programs are rife.

Isn't there a difference between a documentry or educational program on such event and a movie that people will pay $11 USD to see and will be geared towards entertainment?

[phuketvoice]

What I read here is a bit of knee-jerk negative reaction to the very idea of any tsunami film, at least this early, if at all (which is fine). But I think I detect just a slight amount of self-righteousness in some of these posts. Many people are making negative (and false) assumptions.

First, a small thing: as some people have missed, this is not going to be a film that will be shown in theatres, but rather on BBC.

Second Harry Herb said, "What I find interesting is that they're clearly concerned about "distressing" British families of victims, but don't think twice about using local people here to play the 'victims' - having said that, though, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will take the cash without a second thought." What is wrong with merely asking local people to play victims? (Its asking, not “using”) If you are asked to participate, and have a problem with it, you just say no. Movies, unless they have a big budget, can’t really afford to bring in extras from outside the places where they are being filmed. I didn't know it was so horribly insulting to merely be asked. Lastly, not all extras are doing it for the cash. Some people, (gasp!), actually think this film is a good thing.

Third, it also seems alot of people on this thread are trying to deny that anyone who would have anything to do with this film could actually also have been victimized or traumatized by the tsunami to the same level or at all. The disaster affected all kinds of people, whether they were physically on the beach, chilling out in Rawai, or watching it on TV from another country. Whether a person you knew was killed, a place you identified with was destroyed, you were simply horrified by the scope of the disaster and its aftermath, or whatever, nobody can be denied their particular emotional response.

Fourth, to quote ‘konkeror,’ “It depends on how it's done. It could be totally tasteless. Then again, if done well (not likely) it could induce some people to visit just by virtue of the on-location shooting. It depends a great deal on what sort of attitude the film has towards both officials and local people who went through the disaster.” A film does not have an attitude. A film is not a person. It is (hopefully) a collaborative work of art that is the product of many interactions. Surely the people involved in the making of the film are not all of one mind acting in unison. Yes, the film could wind up being done poorly, but if that happens, it will likely happen to the dismay of many involved in making it.

A brief aside: Harry Herb’s original post says “Extra info: filming locations will be - get this - Krabi, Phuket, Khao Lak.,” I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “get this” When you say “get this,” you mean it is self-evident, very obvious, to everyone what you think about the fact it is being filmed in those places. Is there a self-evident, undeniable problem with filming in these places? Can you enlighten me, please?

Fifth, yes perhaps it is too early for a film about the tsunami, but on the other hand, some of the issues raised are pressing and many people have already forgotten them: land snatching, people who still haven’t found their loved ones (or their bodies), just to name two of them. Why should we wait to talk about land snatching when five years from now it will be, in many cases, something nobody can do anything about. Bad things are happening RIGHT NOW and surely raising awareness of them can help. Why does everyone automatically assume this film is all about making money? Maybe the person who wrote it wanted to raise awareness. What a concept.

More strange comments, (khall64au) “Too bad the locals were not consulted... am sure the "true" experts popped up and the end product will be sensational-istically worth the advertisers dollars! First, who are “the locals"? Expats who make comments on online bulletin boards? Thai government officials? Food vendors? And how do you know they weren’t consulted? How could you possibly know who was, or is being consulted?!

Harry Herb writes, The story, as far as I understand it, is told from a tourist's (not local) perspective and is likely to be critical of the Thai (lack of) action re: warning systems... no mention of charitable donations either (probably because the BBC already thinks of itself as a charity!!)

Actually, my understanding is that there are a number of perspectives represented in the film, including a number of different Thai perspectives. (There’s actually more than one Thai perspective, you know) To expand on this, and this is the worst aspect of self-righteousness, why are people afraid to point the finger at anyone Thai? The fact is that warnings of a potential tsunami were ignored by Thai “government officials” in order to protect tourism. Everyone knows that. We’re not afraid to criticize the UK authorities but as soon as anyone has anything negative to say about anything Thai, suddenly we’re racist, colonialist or some other shit. That’s just ridiculous. Some serious corruption exists here and some really bad stuff went down not just because of the scum in the media and foreign corporations, but also (gasp!) some very evil Thai people.

I will make no assumptions about to what extent anyone posting here should be or is involved in efforts to help those vicitimized (in whatever way) by the tsunami or to fight the injustices that followed in its wake, but I do wonder why so many people are getting in a big huff about this film (the criticsm extends well beoynd this online forum) when they could be doing more to address the issues raised by the film.

Despite all the points I’ve raised, I definitely accept that people may simply not approve of this film and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Criticize it, undermine it if you must. But just try to keep your mind a bit open and don’t always rush to judgment. Simple advice in anything in life.

[HarryHerb]

What I read here is a bit of knee-jerk negative reaction to the very idea of any tsunami film, at least this early, if at all (which is fine). But I think I detect just a slight amount of self-righteousness in some of these posts. Many people are making negative (and false) assumptions.

First, a small thing: as some people have missed, this is not going to be a film that will be shown in theatres, but rather on BBC.

Second Harry Herb said, "What I find interesting is that they're clearly concerned about "distressing" British families of victims, but don't think twice about using local people here to play the 'victims' - having said that, though, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will take the cash without a second thought." What is wrong with merely asking local people to play victims? (Its asking, not “using”) If you are asked to participate, and have a problem with it, you just say no. Movies, unless they have a big budget, can’t really afford to bring in extras from outside the places where they are being filmed. I didn't know it was so horribly insulting to merely be asked. Lastly, not all extras are doing it for the cash. Some people, (gasp!), actually think this film is a good thing.

The widespread reaction you dismiss as 'knee-jerk' could equally well be described as a very strong gut feeling that this film is wrong. Although you attempt to portray me as self-righteous and over-emotional, I think I am a fairly rational person, capable of clear thought. And my overwhelming feeling is that, regardless of how the subject is treated, it is just too soon to make this film.

This is why, yes, it is insulting to put up a public poster asking local people (many of whom were real victims) to come and play at being victims. There are more sensitive ways to recruit.

Third, it also seems alot of people on this thread are trying to deny that anyone who would have anything to do with this film could actually also have been victimized or traumatized by the tsunami to the same level or at all. The disaster affected all kinds of people, whether they were physically on the beach, chilling out in Rawai, or watching it on TV from another country. Whether a person you knew was killed, a place you identified with was destroyed, you were simply horrified by the scope of the disaster and its aftermath, or whatever, nobody can be denied their particular emotional response.

Including those who object to the film?

Fourth, to quote ‘konkeror,’ “It depends on how it's done. It could be totally tasteless. Then again, if done well (not likely) it could induce some people to visit just by virtue of the on-location shooting. It depends a great deal on what sort of attitude the film has towards both officials and local people who went through the disaster.” A film does not have an attitude. A film is not a person. It is (hopefully) a collaborative work of art that is the product of many interactions. Surely the people involved in the making of the film are not all of one mind acting in unison. Yes, the film could wind up being done poorly, but if that happens, it will likely happen to the dismay of many involved in making it.

A brief aside: Harry Herb’s original post says “Extra info: filming locations will be - get this - Krabi, Phuket, Khao Lak.,” I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “get this” When you say “get this,” you mean it is self-evident, very obvious, to everyone what you think about the fact it is being filmed in those places. Is there a self-evident, undeniable problem with filming in these places? Can you enlighten me, please?

See above: it is too soon. With the exception of Ko Phi Phi, which seems to have its own little tsunami tourist industry going on, I cannot see a re-enactment of events on any beach in the area going down very well.

Fifth, yes perhaps it is too early for a film about the tsunami, but on the other hand, some of the issues raised are pressing and many people have already forgotten them: land snatching, people who still haven’t found their loved ones (or their bodies), just to name two of them. Why should we wait to talk about land snatching when five years from now it will be, in many cases, something nobody can do anything about. Bad things are happening RIGHT NOW and surely raising awareness of them can help. Why does everyone automatically assume this film is all about making money? Maybe the person who wrote it wanted to raise awareness. What a concept.

Please re-read your two statements in bold.

Land-snatching is clearly an issue, you are quite right, and one that should be raised; there are several groups working with disenfranchised residents at the moment. However, the sub-plot of a TV drama is hardly the best place to raise such complex issues.

More strange comments, (khall64au) “Too bad the locals were not consulted... am sure the "true" experts popped up and the end product will be sensational-istically worth the advertisers dollars! First, who are “the locals"? Expats who make comments on online bulletin boards? Thai government officials? Food vendors? And how do you know they weren’t consulted? How could you possibly know who was, or is being consulted?!

Harry Herb writes, The story, as far as I understand it, is told from a tourist's (not local) perspective and is likely to be critical of the Thai (lack of) action re: warning systems... no mention of charitable donations either (probably because the BBC already thinks of itself as a charity!!)

Actually, my understanding is that there are a number of perspectives represented in the film, including a number of different Thai perspectives. (There’s actually more than one Thai perspective, you know) To expand on this, and this is the worst aspect of self-righteousness, why are people afraid to point the finger at anyone Thai? The fact is that warnings of a potential tsunami were ignored by Thai “government officials” in order to protect tourism. Everyone knows that. We’re not afraid to criticize the UK authorities but as soon as anyone has anything negative to say about anything Thai, suddenly we’re racist, colonialist or some other shit. That’s just ridiculous. Some serious corruption exists here and some really bad stuff went down not just because of the scum in the media and foreign corporations, but also (gasp!) some very evil Thai people.

I will make no assumptions about to what extent anyone posting here should be or is involved in efforts to help those vicitimized (in whatever way) by the tsunami or to fight the injustices that followed in its wake, but I do wonder why so many people are getting in a big huff about this film (the criticsm extends well beoynd this online forum) when they could be doing more to address the issues raised by the film.

Despite all the points I’ve raised, I definitely accept that people may simply not approve of this film and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Criticize it, undermine it if you must. But just try to keep your mind a bit open and don’t always rush to judgment. Simple advice in anything in life.

Thanks for the advice, Phuketvoice. I'm not trying to undremine the film itself (how could I? I haven't even seen it, or the screenplay), simply questioning the need to film it right now, presumably with a 2-year anniversary Christmas release date. The only reason you've come up with is that it will raise issues about land snatching, the merits of which frankly do not outweigh the distress I think this film will cause. The fact there are, as you say, so many others like me who feel the same surely points to the existence of some overriding public sentiment. Call it the self-righteous moral majority if you will; but it is a real feeling and I'm afraid it will not budge.

[khall64au]

Coming soon, Tsunami: The Movie

The Thailand tsunami is coming to the big screen, and will be at a theatre near you in time for the New Year's celebration.

Hollywood would never dream of exploiting such a terrible tragedy, but Tsunami the movie involves not only Hollywood, in the form of HBO Films, but BBC Two as well.

World Entertainment News reports from Hollywood this morning (Thailand time) that the two companies have joined up, hired a mid-level name actor and supporting cast, and have already begun filming the big wave epic at Phuket and, of course, at Khao Lak.

The film will star Tim Roth, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sophie Okonedo, Toni Collette, Hugh Bonneville and Gina McKee.

According to the press release, "Tsunami (the name of the movie) covers the disaster and its aftermath from the vantage point of survivors, media and relief workers."

Luckily for the Hollywood financiers, the anniversary of the actual tsunami is December 26, a perfect date to release a movie and catch the holiday crowds, in order to cash in to the maximum extent on the death and destruction.

The producers have not yet announced they will hold the world premiere in Phuket, and that it will be a serious and respectful film. Those statements will fuel further press releases between now and December. (BangkokPost.com)

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...ws.php?id=93085

[LaoPo]

Coming soon, Tsunami: The Movie

The Thailand tsunami is coming to the big screen, and will be at a theatre near you in time for the New Year's celebration.

Hollywood would never dream of exploiting such a terrible tragedy, but Tsunami the movie involves not only Hollywood, in the form of HBO Films, but BBC Two as well.

World Entertainment News reports from Hollywood this morning (Thailand time) that the two companies have joined up, hired a mid-level name actor and supporting cast, and have already begun filming the big wave epic at Phuket and, of course, at Khao Lak.

The film will star Tim Roth, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sophie Okonedo, Toni Collette, Hugh Bonneville and Gina McKee.

According to the press release, "Tsunami (the name of the movie) covers the disaster and its aftermath from the vantage point of survivors, media and relief workers."

Luckily for the Hollywood financiers, the anniversary of the actual tsunami is December 26, a perfect date to release a movie and catch the holiday crowds, in order to cash in to the maximum extent on the death and destruction.

The producers have not yet announced they will hold the world premiere in Phuket, and that it will be a serious and respectful film. Those statements will fuel further press releases between now and December. (BangkokPost.com)

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...ws.php?id=93085

Would be nice if the Hollywood Financiers would donate a substantial percentage of the profits to the victims/families...

LaoPo

[thaibebop]

Coming soon, Tsunami: The Movie

The Thailand tsunami is coming to the big screen, and will be at a theatre near you in time for the New Year's celebration.

Hollywood would never dream of exploiting such a terrible tragedy, but Tsunami the movie involves not only Hollywood, in the form of HBO Films, but BBC Two as well.

World Entertainment News reports from Hollywood this morning (Thailand time) that the two companies have joined up, hired a mid-level name actor and supporting cast, and have already begun filming the big wave epic at Phuket and, of course, at Khao Lak.

The film will star Tim Roth, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sophie Okonedo, Toni Collette, Hugh Bonneville and Gina McKee.

According to the press release, "Tsunami (the name of the movie) covers the disaster and its aftermath from the vantage point of survivors, media and relief workers."

Luckily for the Hollywood financiers, the anniversary of the actual tsunami is December 26, a perfect date to release a movie and catch the holiday crowds, in order to cash in to the maximum extent on the death and destruction.

The producers have not yet announced they will hold the world premiere in Phuket, and that it will be a serious and respectful film. Those statements will fuel further press releases between now and December. (BangkokPost.com)

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...ws.php?id=93085

Would be nice if the Hollywood Financiers would donate a substantial percentage of the profits to the victims/families...

LaoPo

Isn't porfitable.