Stylus Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 I just scanned the doc again and he shows a shot on her hand when she is on a swing - are we watching the same film? The beginning of the film states 800,000 women work the night scene in Thailand. This is the story of one. I think you are confusing what you want to hear and what the film is actually about - one girl and her story. The film never promises to explore why they do what they do. Sure the filmmaker gives his opinions, but correct me if I am wrong - doesn't it seem that this film was an opportunity for one of these girls to speak (the story of one). If she blew it or didn't say what you would have her say, don't blame the filmmaker. If there is 100% percent doubt in what she says, I'm sure the filmmaker would have moved on - of course I don't know for sure that he would, but CBC is a very reputible broadcaster here and they have employees in Thailand who must have done at least some fact checking - we are not talking about public access here. The film isn't called Bangkok Girls - it's called Bangkok Girl - all the publicity states "...through the eyes of one girl" This film isn't an expose it is a first person narrative - the girls narrative. If the facts the filmmaker throws in are background noise, then good! It should be nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soongmak Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 This film isn't an expose it is a first person narrative - the girls narrative We can agree on that. Her story goes only skin deep, that's why it is hardly of interest to me. I would have liked it to be considerably more substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 Regardless of the story the girl tells (true or false - although I will give the filmmaker the benefit of the doubt. She tells a hard luck story of abuse and she actually has the disfigurment to back it up - part of her right hand is missing - this also backs up the claim that she only poured drinks - and also backs up why she wouldn't have gone with a customer as it seems she just turned 19 and any level headed bar owner stupid enough to have a 13 year old working for him wouldn't let her go with a customer. Give him the benefit of the doubt for what? Not for the credibility of the story I hope' date=' because he only expressed his doubts- and didn't check up on it. As for the disfigurement, I didn't see it in the documentary, I only HEARD about it, but I don't doubt stories like that happen. To me, it has the ring of truth to it. I can't discuss the underage issue here, because it's against the rule of this board. As far as level-headedness of barowners, I think there is a contradictio in terminis here. The very few professional barowners aside, I suspect most don't really know what they're doing and ventured into the business because of their love for pussy. If Jordan really wanted to know why BGs do what they do, he should have lived upcountry for a while. See what it's like to live in the sticks. Then he would have gotten a fresh and real perspective on why these girls do what they do, instead of blaming it on the farang appetite for thai pussy. Everybody here knows the Thai prostitution caters mostly for the domestic market. The only time where he scratched the surface IMO was when he looked at prostitution laws, the lack of reinforcement and the corruption of the police force. Too bad it was just used as background noise in this documentary. [/quote'] If that's the story you want to make then make it, there are other options. I saw a personal story that were quite revealing and pretty much what we read on this board. A man comes to BKK finds a sweet innnocent girl that rock his world only to find out she were lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stylus Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 Well, I suppose it's time to throw in the old "Let's agree to disagree". The beauty of this discussion is that you don't have to watch the film - and hell, you can even make your own if you like. Like any documentary, it is a point of view - we will agree or disagreee. Of course we would all like to think that we have the "real" story. I think what caught me as offensive when I first came across this board was the amount of people trashing the film before they had even seen it. They obviously have their minds made up - for whatever justification - so an encouragement to download this film and watch it via Bittorrent is futile. They will only see what they want to see and trash the film for not supporting their behaviour - and yes I am generalizing that the people on this board trashing the film are pooning in Thailand or have an ex-bargirl wife - am I wrong? Why don't you guys pool together your resources and tell the real story - or was that already done in "Sin Cities:Bangkok" where all the girls love sex and foreigners. How about a list of films that have told this type of story better. Don't say "Good Woman of Bangkok" because that was a work of fiction - it even says so - for those who read the credits. Again, I read in one of the press articles that the filmmaker's goal was to get people talking - so I suppose we are helping him acheive his goal whether you support the film or not - this board will be here for anyone to read. I'll just add for the record, Good on you Jordan Clark and CBC - we needed a balance from the hedonistic conquest stories being brought back from abroad. Here is a quote from a news article which I think we can all agree on: "He does not condemn those who participate in the Thai sex trade because so many men and women there are dependent on it, but wants to pass on what he has learned to future generations of western travelers. â??The one thing I can say is if youâ??re traveling through Thailand and you see a westerner doing something or acting in a way thatâ??s inappropriate, do something,â? he said. â??Being in a foreign country doesnâ??t give you license to act like a jackass. I mean, have fun, but [remember] youâ??re dealing with people who are trying to feed their families.â? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 I'm trying not to defend him too much' date=' but he does say that it is her story (can she not speak â?? even if it is a lie?) [/quote'] Correct me if I am wrong, but when you tell someone's story and call your piece of work a 'documentary' don't you have to do some research of your own? Like checking out if it is actually true? What is the worth of a story if you don't check it? It's about as useful as an authorized biography in which the subject has final cut. Not newsworthy at all. Ratings....if people watch they do well out of these docos.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 "...Don't say "Good Woman of Bangkok" because that was a work of fiction - it even says so - for those who read the credits...." It may have been a work of fiction, but it is probably as accurate/true as many other "documentrys." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soongmak Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Not the first I have read that 'worked bar but not go with customer', but through all the half lies making her look better, the kind of lies we all tell, is the main ghist of the show wrong? Her story is not at all remarkable,and it doesn't even have a narrative. The narrative and all the opinions comes from Jordan. She doesn't express an opinion about any subject, at all. She is basically acting out semi-innocent and playful for the cameras, while Jordan in a serious, painful voice fills in the blanks. And those blanks are not filled in through research, but through his own preconceived notions. Just check out the show and tell me where I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stylus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Oh come now soongmak - no reason to be so bitter. We all get- you don't like the filmmaker or his film. I think you said it better earlier when you mentioned the story is "of no interest to me (you)" rather than your latter the story is not remarkable at all. Again, you have completely missed the point of the film and that is to let one of these girls talk. I also beg to differ that she has no opinions on what is happening around her - her life, actions, smile (especially the smile, we all know about that famous Thai smile)and more so her playfulness for the camera. Most people, who have or will never meet one, do not see a Thai prostitute as this type of girl - it gives her a human quality. The filmmaker's narration tells of his observations of Pla - he has that better researched than anyone - and the other opinions thrown in are, at worst, too carefully researched as the information is safely available on the internet. But again - his opinions are secondary to the film - so yes, I am telling you that you're wrong. The film is called Bangkok Girl to draw the focus to her. It's not "Bangkok Girl - but really listen to the filmmaker" A quick Film 101 for you guys: The film is structured to first introduce Pla, introduce this world and a first timers impression of it - remember that Clark never professes to be an authority - in fact he starts off by proclaiming his naivity. The first half of the film is a voyueristic view of Pla and her life as if anyone would have barfined her out and spent time with her. The second half - with the introduction of Pla's missing hand- creates empathy and the film is handed over to her. She completes the film through her eyes, until the filmmaker throws in a wrench at the end - now if this information is true - it is an unfortunate story. You would have to be Scrooge McDuck not to think so - or maybe just Soongmak (ouch! low blow - sorry). If it isn't true and Pla and Jordan are sipping out of coconut shells somewhere from the proceeds of the film - then he is brilliant and certainly pulled off a good one. He fell in love, found a way to finance a life for them, getting sent residuals, cut he ties with undesireables (through her death) - just food for thought Back to "Good Woman of Bangkok". This film is so full of inaccuracies that there have been essays written on it. For those who don't know or prefer to adhere to it's authenticity. The film is copied after the Bertolt Brecht play "The Good Woman of Setzuan" . Right down to the characters, the actions, the buying of the farm (which was BS) - these are in the play. Those who recognize this have called Dennis O'Rourke on it, but he does not speak of it. Instead he would rather let all the ex-pats believe he is "one of the boys" to further advertise the "authenticity" as most men don't have the culture or experience to find the fraud - easily stating "I'm one of the good guys - just like O'Rourke. I'm not like those drukards in the film". This manipulation is far deeper and offensive - to me -than anything Clark tried to do in "Bangkok Girl". Clark didn't veil his actions under a false pretense of love. An excerpt regarding "Good Woman of Setzuan": "All I have done I did, To help my Neighbor, To love my lover, And to keep my little one from want. To let no one perish, not even oneself, To fill everyone with happiness, even oneself is so good." The epilogue of the play urges the audience to solve this dilemma: how can human beings -- who are moral and good by nature -- justify the evils of capitalism if these evils are necessary for this system to survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partyguy Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Stylus, oops I mean Jordan...Jordan Stylus whatever.. Nice to see your take on the documentary. I did not like in the film where you said , oops I mean Jordan said something about all street girls(freelancers) being HIV + . do you remember what the quote was exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stylus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Stylus, oops I mean Jordan...Jordan Stylus whatever..Nice to see your take on the documentary. I did not like in the film where you said , oops I mean Jordan said something about all street girls(freelancers) being HIV + . do you remember what the quote was exactly? Sorry Charlie, no dice. But I'm sure you can contact the filmmaker through their website http://highbanks.ca/ I am a proud fellow Canadian though, a film buff and love a good debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.