Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Protection Racket: - Movie making, graft and the Environment collide in China
posted Monday, 15 May 2006
While traditional architecture, an abundance of natural beauty, and rich culture of story telling have long made China a desirable location in which to make a motion picture, bureaucracy, a pronounced lack of transparency, not to mention an ingrained culture of bribery, have meant that getting permission to film in China has never been a simple task.
As of this month though, the process has just become .....much more complicated.
In response to growing concerns over the damage that unregulated filming has been doing to some of China's most historic and scenic sites, Beijing has, late last week, announced a new raft of environmental protection legislation designed specifically to minimize impact that film crews have on the locations that they shoot, and to ensure that production companies are held accountable for repairing any damage that they might cause the local environment.
Under this new legislation, no production company may film at any historic sites or beauty spot in China without first obtaining both an environmental impact report from provincial construction authorities, and an official filming permit from the national Ministry of Construction
New legislation will compel film companies to avoid where possible, and repair if not:
Similar restrictions will also apply to 'live commercial performances' including concerts and festivals held in historical site or environmentally sensitive locations.
New Deal?
Prior to this months introduction of new regulations, China had no unified legislation to prevent environmental damage caused to historic or scenic locations by film crews. Making last weeks announcement a key move in the protection of China's heritage and natural resources.
The Trigger?
Considered to be 'long overdue' by some observers, this new round of legislation follows on from an earlier incident in which a film crew that was working for Warner Independent Films is alleged to have caused 'extensive environmental damage' to number of Chinese heritage sites, including the Bigu Temple in Han occupied Tibet, and the Yuanmingyuan Garden, which form part of the Old Sumer Palace in Beijing.
The Accusation?
Media reports hold that Warner Independent badly damaged the Bigu Temple site during an extended filming season by constructing artificial roads, used to move equipment, through the temples gardens, as well as by abandoning a large prefabricated concrete movie-set, and approximately 100 wooden stake which were driven into a lake bed at the site, in order to create the base of a bridge.
Media reports also claim that Warner Independent's prop department damaged 60 trees in the Yuanmingyuan Garden by painting them yellow to simulate Autumn leaves.
Many of the trees are since said to have become withered and sick.
A prefabricated concrete construct left by Warner International at
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"
Additionally, media reports claim that both the Temple and Garden sites were 'festooned with litter and detritus' left by members of the film crew.
The Response?
In response to the accusations made against it, representatives from Warner Independent acknowledged that they had left set materials and prop at the two sites. However, they strongly deny that they are responsible for any long term damage, instead voicing that, before they left, they had reached an agreement with local authorities to restore the sites to their original condition, and that they had provided them with sufficient funds to cover all cleanup costs.
Dissatisfaction?
Despite Warner Independent's claims to have provided for a cleanup effort, many observers remain dissatisfied, including sources within the Chinese media who have voiced that the western film company remains responsible for the damage, even if they paid for it to be rectified, because it failed to properly oversea cleanup efforts.
In contrast to this, other observers have however voiced that Warner appears to have acted in good faith, and so should not be held responsible for environmental damage that they paid to be rectified. Instead putting forward that that those who took the money, but neglected to do the work, should instead be held responsible.
Whether any actual clearance or restoration work actually took place after Warner International departed is not currently clear. Though report indicate that the Bigu Temple site was at least partially restored after public outcry lead to state intervention.
Filming took place during late 2004 and early 2005.
Graft?
Though welcomed by environmental activists and preservation interests, the announcement of the new environmental protection initiative has raised some eyebrows among seasoned China watchers, some of whom have questioned whether a permit and permission based scheme would have many real benefits - given China's ingrained culture of corruption.
As such, some observers have voiced that, unless significant work is done to remove corruption from the system, the new scheme might simply become a new revenue source. With local officials charging both foreign and domestic film crews large fees in exchange for 'favorable' environmental impact reports, and national officials issuing permits based on a production companies willingness to pay the 'additional administration fees' that have become synonymous with doing business in China, rather than based on their intention to minimize/repair any environmental damage that they cause.
It has been suggested that a substantial portion of the money paid out by Warner Independent, for site clearance and restoration, may have been lost through corruption.
As of this month though, the process has just become .....much more complicated.
In response to growing concerns over the damage that unregulated filming has been doing to some of China's most historic and scenic sites, Beijing has, late last week, announced a new raft of environmental protection legislation designed specifically to minimize impact that film crews have on the locations that they shoot, and to ensure that production companies are held accountable for repairing any damage that they might cause the local environment.
Under this new legislation, no production company may film at any historic sites or beauty spot in China without first obtaining both an environmental impact report from provincial construction authorities, and an official filming permit from the national Ministry of Construction
New legislation will compel film companies to avoid where possible, and repair if not:
- Damage to slopes, embankments, pathways and lawns caused by the movement of camera dollies and other filming equipment
- 'modifications' performed to a location; including the construction or alteration of buildings and landscapes to fit in with the look of different areas and time periods
- Littering or the releasing of chemicals and other man made substances.
- All forms of accidental damage caused to locations by film crews
Similar restrictions will also apply to 'live commercial performances' including concerts and festivals held in historical site or environmentally sensitive locations.
New Deal?
Prior to this months introduction of new regulations, China had no unified legislation to prevent environmental damage caused to historic or scenic locations by film crews. Making last weeks announcement a key move in the protection of China's heritage and natural resources.
| "The environmental impact of cultural and entertainment industries has long been an area covered by no laws and no regulations. Although they are mostly temporary projects, whether shooting a movie or having a festival celebration, they tend to subject the environment to risks” Wang Ping, (Department of Environmental Engineering, Beijing University of Industry and Commerce), Representative, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference |
The Trigger?
Considered to be 'long overdue' by some observers, this new round of legislation follows on from an earlier incident in which a film crew that was working for Warner Independent Films is alleged to have caused 'extensive environmental damage' to number of Chinese heritage sites, including the Bigu Temple in Han occupied Tibet, and the Yuanmingyuan Garden, which form part of the Old Sumer Palace in Beijing.
The Accusation?
Media reports hold that Warner Independent badly damaged the Bigu Temple site during an extended filming season by constructing artificial roads, used to move equipment, through the temples gardens, as well as by abandoning a large prefabricated concrete movie-set, and approximately 100 wooden stake which were driven into a lake bed at the site, in order to create the base of a bridge.
Media reports also claim that Warner Independent's prop department damaged 60 trees in the Yuanmingyuan Garden by painting them yellow to simulate Autumn leaves.
Many of the trees are since said to have become withered and sick.
A prefabricated concrete construct left by Warner International at
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"
A ruined bridge construct left by Warner International at
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"
Additionally, media reports claim that both the Temple and Garden sites were 'festooned with litter and detritus' left by members of the film crew.
The Response?
In response to the accusations made against it, representatives from Warner Independent acknowledged that they had left set materials and prop at the two sites. However, they strongly deny that they are responsible for any long term damage, instead voicing that, before they left, they had reached an agreement with local authorities to restore the sites to their original condition, and that they had provided them with sufficient funds to cover all cleanup costs.
Dissatisfaction?
Despite Warner Independent's claims to have provided for a cleanup effort, many observers remain dissatisfied, including sources within the Chinese media who have voiced that the western film company remains responsible for the damage, even if they paid for it to be rectified, because it failed to properly oversea cleanup efforts.
| "Even though they said they had spoken to local authorities about the matter, it remains to be explained what on earth they spoke about in the first place. They should at least see to it that the site is indeed cleaned up." Jiang Xiaoyu, Film Critic, CCTV |
In contrast to this, other observers have however voiced that Warner appears to have acted in good faith, and so should not be held responsible for environmental damage that they paid to be rectified. Instead putting forward that that those who took the money, but neglected to do the work, should instead be held responsible.
Whether any actual clearance or restoration work actually took place after Warner International departed is not currently clear. Though report indicate that the Bigu Temple site was at least partially restored after public outcry lead to state intervention.
Filming took place during late 2004 and early 2005.
Graft?
Though welcomed by environmental activists and preservation interests, the announcement of the new environmental protection initiative has raised some eyebrows among seasoned China watchers, some of whom have questioned whether a permit and permission based scheme would have many real benefits - given China's ingrained culture of corruption.
As such, some observers have voiced that, unless significant work is done to remove corruption from the system, the new scheme might simply become a new revenue source. With local officials charging both foreign and domestic film crews large fees in exchange for 'favorable' environmental impact reports, and national officials issuing permits based on a production companies willingness to pay the 'additional administration fees' that have become synonymous with doing business in China, rather than based on their intention to minimize/repair any environmental damage that they cause.
It has been suggested that a substantial portion of the money paid out by Warner Independent, for site clearance and restoration, may have been lost through corruption.
View Comments/Add a Comment (2)
1. Sarah left...
Tuesday, 16 May 2006 4:33 am :: http://www.journalscape.com/rhubarb/
I have often thought that the great minds and great religions of a people
reveal, in high relief, the basic problems with their society. Confucius'
writings on honesty and probity of government officials and concern for the
larger picture and for the sons' future world certainly fit with my theory.
What is the greatest evil in a people gives rise to its finest philosophy
and religious texts.
2. China Law Blog left...
Saturday, 20 May 2006 11:00 am :: http://www.chinalawblog.com
Thanks for the pictures. These are the first I've seen. Wow!