Stick....should know better

[sinsin2]

flyonzewall

What you are saying is true.

But whatever care you take with your interview can /will be twisted by the

background/editing.

I am leaving for LOS in 2 hours so this has to be quick.

Picture these scenes.

Issarn in August...parched.

5 70 y/o and 15 children sitting on a dungpile in a cowshed.

Young men gone to work abroad/Bkk.

Young girls ...scenes of NEP/Patpong.

2 very young children..orphans.

Lady dead from Aids even the buffaloes have it.

Some scumbag expat (there are plenty of them)

talking about 10 dollar fucks with no condom.

Include an interview with/about Purchai and the crackdown.

Your/My 10/20 second clips are interspersed against this background.

"I know ,I am 20 years older than her and her family has nothing,but she loves me it,s not about money.Is it Noi/Nid?.

I could go on...but ..YIPPEE I,m off.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pattaya127:

you that the problem is not the docu itself, but the damnation of the farangs portrayed in it EVEN IF THEY COME OUT AS DECENT GUYS as the media will attack the film maker for finding excuses to men who can only be but depraved self-indulgent loosers.

Anyway, how about a docu by someone who's done the deed, rather than being outside looking in. [/QB]

---

then let the media attac the film maker. fortunately not every one is completely ignorant. well presented viewers will be able to make up their own mind, don't need somebody to do that for themselves.

in general i agree that it would be good for a documentary when the person who does it knows what it means to be into the scene. but it does not mean that much, he might still be a mercenary who cares only about the money to be made out of it. over the years i have seen many reportages and documentaries made by people who had been big time players but came away holier than though in the final product. just look at the book "off the rails in phnom penh".

most important is to find out in person. what is the movie maker about, who is he working for, how much copyright does he actually have about the final product (production houses and magazines are not beyond screwing journalists), and finally get some kind of contract if he is not well known personally.

but recently there were several more serious books and articles published which show a bit more realistic sides of the scenes who got very good reviews all around the world (and i know of at least one more serious book in the making). that should be a encouraging sign.

[pattaya127]

quote:

---

Originally posted by flyonzewall:

but recently there were several more serious books and articles published which show a bit more realistic sides of the scenes who got very good reviews all around the world (and i know of at least one more serious book in the making). that should be a encouraging sign.

---

My point is, I guess, the reality of it, poor girls need to sell bodies, is not defensible. But we also know that the nightlife and prostitutes have inspired a lot of artists thru-out the ages (from Brueghel to Picasso and the Bible almost starts with a woman getting her way), so what a man finds in them is pretty subjective, and that is what is interesting about it and if this guy can add this kind of poetic licence to his docu, he'll be a real winner, but that's an uphill battle, because PC has a very strong hold on the media, and the viewers. My favorite TV movies is "naked civil servant", the life of Quentin Crisp, though I am not gay. but to see this wretched guy doing the only thing he can do in life, which is being who he is and nothing else, despite post-victorian morality, you wanted to applaud him for having that kind of courage: knowing and being yourself. Digressing....

[Guest]

The whole debate up to now has been totally selfish, WHAT ABOUT YOUR PARTNER?

She is going to labelled as a hooker, whore whatever you want to call it. How do you thnk she is ever going to make a fresh life for herself when people are going to point her out, OH Look isn't that the Thai whore from the documentary.

Things are hard enough for any girl trying to make a fresh start in a foreign land let alone a girl who is labeled as a prostitute.

Every man who see's her will think she's easy meat,ah she'used to be a $10 hooker.

How long do you think your relationship will last?

It's bad enough that everyone assumes that any Thai girl is a prostitute without it being broadcast for all and sundry to see. That your partner was involved in the scene.

What about any children you will have, the stigma is going to rub off on them as well.

Think twice, then think again before getting involved, discuss it with your girlfriend/wife and make sure she is fully aware of what is going on and the future implications.

[Guest]

Sinsin was 100% spot-on with his post. He, possibly, only should have de-personalized his thread TITLE.

I suspect that Stickman, upon further reflection, will find the magnitude of his defensiveness to be a bit unflattering and that it will impel a speck of lamentation. Particularly, given the stratospheric level of respect and deference granted him by nearly all members of this board, including myself, and, I gather, sinsin.

It's always safe to assume that journalists suck. And, as people here have stated, even if the "real" story is to be conveyed to the masses, the masses don't need to know, anyway.

By the way, shouldn't flyonzewall lend his bleeding heart to the perpetually downtrodden human beings who are obese, with the same fervor as does he champion the cause of po' Asian country folk? I, personally, would rather be a hot Isaan chick than be a grossly obese Western person. Have some empathy and decency flyonzewall.

[ranma500]

I have a production company in the U.K., and am interested in this debate.

I must admit, my first reaction to the note about the French documentary filmmaker was cynical.

The reason:

Some documentary filmmakers are genuinely honest, openminded guys, seeking the truth of a situation. That is what a good documentary filmmaker has to be. You have to be able to enter any situation without preconceptions, observe and record. You inevitably have to edit, and hence editorialise, but a truly honest documentary filmmaker tries to view the whole situation, and make the edited version reflect the reality.

The problem is that there is a commercial imperative here. The programme has been commissioned by someone who probably only saw a one-page synopsis. He commissioned it and will show it on the basis of its ability to attract and keep viewers.

There is no doubt that any programme about Bangkok, about go-go bars, about sex tourism etc. is a strong candidate to attract the interest of a commissioning editor, which is what you have to do - otherwise you never get any money - you never make any programmes.

However if you hand over a programme which has no sleaze content, which shows everybody as pleasant, reasonable characters, there is a real chance that the commissioning editor will freak:

"Where are my fat ugly men fucking young virgins for money? That's why I commissioned this programme."

Unfortunately, a hell of a lot of ethical filmmakers learn that they must adapt, and see the sensational side of any situation.

It is absolutely possible, and often necessary to work out the story before you've shot a single frame. You can always make reality fit your preconceived idea - and the distortion can be very subtle.

A few years ago, I made a feature film. It was very low budget, and the shoot was destined to be tough and problematic. We were approached by a crew from a BBC documentary strand called 'Modern Times'. They wanted to show the 'making of' our film for a full programme.

Well, this was clearly an exciting prospect. A whole television programme would be the best publicity one could imagine.

They demanded a few things as per a standard contract:

1. We sign a contract to give them access to every aspect of the production. This meant that they could visit every meeting, every discussion, every scene, the cutting room, etc.

2. We would have no right whatsoever at any stage to ask them to leave.

3. We would have no control over what they filmed, or what footage they used, or how they used it. In other words, no editorial control whatsoever.

This was a standard BBC agreement.

Well, we started thinking about how we - as filmmakers - might approach it, if we were given the job of shooting the 'making of a low budget film'. All the good stuff would be the fuck-ups, the arguments, the obstacles, the hilarious mistakes, etc. etc.

There would be very little story in a professional group of people turning up and getting the job done - no more interesting than watching an expert changing a car tyre.

So we started to think - what would happen if, for example, we were filming without permission on the street at night (which we were going to have to do), and it had been a boring day for the 'making of' crew - no disasters - no excitement. Wouldn't it be rather tempting to make an anonymous phone-call to the police? Wouldn't there be some great filming opportunities in the crew getting arrested.

Anyway, we couldn't decide, stalled for time, and in the end the 'Modern Times' people lost interest.

I still don't know whether we were right or not.

But the tricky thing was that we did stand to gain something from the documentary - publicity.

The majority of people who volunteer for documentaries have absolutely nothing to gain, and a lot to lose.

On the other hand:

Documentaries are a valuable tool for justice and understanding. There are stories that need to be told. I lament the fact that the commercial imperative - and more importantly the lack of vision and imagination amongst commissioning editors - means that these stories often get pushed aside in favour of more sensational subjects.

Without people who are willing to make themselves the subjects of documentaries, and without the necessary trust between filmmaker and subject, it will become tougher and tougher for documentary filmmakers to practice their craft with the skill that it needs.

Stickman's experiences and knowledge of bar-girls probably have trained him quite well to detect 'bullshit'. I expect that the French documentary filmmaker has good intentions.

I would encourage people to speak to him if you think you have a story that you want to tell.

But take the time to talk to him and suss out for yourself whether you trust him not to make a fool of you.

Make sure you understand the deal. What rights are you giving him? Do you have any rights to even see the footage he produces?

A filmaker would be mad to give away any editorial rights. What if he spends a week filming you, then you see the footage and say, 'Oh no, I've got a spot on my face. You can't use it.' He has spent time and money on this, and if a crew has been involved and budget spent, something like this could even cause financial ruin.

But, I think it is reasonable to ask to see the edited piece, and to be able to make your comments to him about it.

You should also try and find out where the finished programme will be seen. Has it been commissioned? Is it part of a series strand? Find out a bit about the series. Look it up on the Net.

And importantly, try to be objective about yourself. How will other people see you? Will they see you as the caring, loving, person you are, or will they see a fat, ugly farang, pawing a young Thai girl?

Perhaps the best attitude is that of people who really don't care what they look like. They are happy with themselves and their lives. They have fun making the documentary. They have a good laugh when it comes out. And no-one is hurt.

Sorry - a long ramble - but a subject you can probably tell I have a great interest in.

I hope the French filmmaker and/or his subjects will keep us posted on the board. I am going home to UK tomorrow night, otherwise would have been interested to meet him myself.

[Guest]

rictic,

a responsible moviemaker wiil definately take this in consideration. if he wants the girlfriend/wife only sitting there not talking anything than i would give that documentary a miss anyhow. if he is any good he will try to steer the interviews into a direction wich does not embarrass or exploit the interviewees, but where they can explain themselves in a proper manner.

it should not be too difficult to see very fast what the guy is up to by the way of questions. for example if parameters are set and he constantly tries to extend the limits of them. that should be a warning sign.

most important is that the people to be interviewed have to be constantly aware of what they say in front of the camera. when a couple is interviewed the man has to be aware of what his wife/girlfriend is saying, if necessary stop it for a moment. people have to be aware that they should give short answers brought to the point so that nothing can be cut out of context. and people should not be afraid to tell the interviewer to stop the camera because they need time to think. the material anyhow has to be cut.

if agreements are broken you can walk out anytime and let him find somebody else.

it important not to be paranoid but also to be constantly aware that a lot of people will see that in the end.

[Guest]

sinsin,

that kind of "documentary" has been done to death. unfortunately most of the documentaries about that topic go along these lines, which makes it much more difficult for someone who wants to make something good to get access. i hope the guy who makes that documentary wants to make something which represents realities and not the old stereotype. but one should not forget that realities can be harsh sometimes. i think that poverty and drugaddiction have to be included as they are real, but also the realities of the westerner have to be brought in, for example that one who considers a serious relationship with a bargirl is honestly in love and doesn't just look for a slave. as you know that topic is extremely complex, and should be represented as such. cheap solutions and pointing fingers are just not realistic.

one sign could be how much time he plans to spend on it. the longer the better. that would mean either he or his production house is willing to spend serious money and/or effort. that is usually done only when something with more depth is planned.

the ones going along your script are usually shot on location not more than a week.

so far i only speculate, but i am very sure to hear more about what is happening with that film. especially if it is a good one where the author intends to spend more time on it i am reasonably sure he will at some point of his research contact me. if he does, and i believe his intentions are honest i will post it.

a good documentary is for several reasons in my interest. a bad one i don't care about, nobody will watch it anyhow.

[Guest]

I have to agree with comments from 'Old Hippie'. However if this guy is intent on making a "sexpose", why doesn't he go home and look at Marseille, South France. He could spend a year touting his camera there and would never be allowed to show the interesting bits by the French Politicos. I am probably an ideal candidate for him but no way would I (or my lady) go near him.

[pattaya127]

the whole subject is pretty drying up. with IFs vs "I told you so's". What else is there to talk about, if the guy does not go deep into showing how thai society works, thai family functions, and mostly what makes a farang tick in LOS. How in the hell, can he put in his movie the smells that start assailing you just off the plane, and the street stalls, and the jasmine garlands, and the constant flirtatiousness of so many thai women, in a store, in a market, on the train/bus giving you a sense of the possible even when it does not happen. Fuck reality, this is a totally subjective subject that so far, only writers have gotten close to pin down. i say, if his movie does not carry all these smells and doesn't show (or make us guess) also the unseen like feelings of all sorts that one only feels in LOS, it might as well be shot in madagascar or Brazil, anywhere else....