Press Release FOREVER LOVE FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL AID TO THAILAND
8320 Melrose Avenue, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90069
(323) 960-5503 Email: foreverlove@forever-love.orgJanuary, 2000 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOYCOTT OF 20TH CENTURY FOX’S MOVIE “THE BEACH” Since I published the attached article in the Los Angeles Times on December 27, 1999, I have received a number of e mail messages raising further questions about the boycott of “The Beach,” starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Forever Love Foundation (FLF) is a small non-profit, tax-exempt organization whose mission is to raise funds for orphans and their children affected by AIDS in Thailand. We are not an environmental organization, and don’t pretend to take the lead on this issue. Nevertheless, as a native of Thailand who believes that nature is sacred, and as a long-time resident of Los Angeles who is familiar with the power that the Hollywood film industry has to do good things or bad things in the world, I felt it was appropriate to endorse the boycott of “The Beach.” Below are some answers to specific questions about the movie’s controversy.
--Malissa Drake, President, Forever Love Foundation
Q. What caused the controversy over “The Beach”?
A. 20th Century Fox shot portions of the movie on Maya Beach of Phi Phi Le Island in Thailand, a Thai National Park. But the producer Andrew Macdonald was unhappy with this natural paradise, so bulldozed some sand dunes, removed native vegetation (Giant Milkweed, Sea Pandanus, Spider Lily and other beach grass), and planted 60 temporary, non-native coconut palm trees.
Q. But didn’t Fox restore the beach to its previous condition?
A. People who ask this question just “don’t get it.” The natural beach never should have been bulldozed in the first place. It is disrespectful of nature for human beings to intervene in a natural ecosystem, especially one that is set aside for preservation in a national park. To do so is an act of ecological illiteracy. It misunderstands the beauty of ecosystems and how they work. Would we allow a movie studio to do such a thing in Yosemite?
Q. Should Hollywood really be treated like any other corporate polluter?
A. Yes. There is no special moral exception for Hollywood. Fox is no different from a corporation that builds a salt factory in a whale lagoon or an oil company that drills offshore. In fact, because of the film industry’s public visibility, it is especially important to cure Hollywood of its arrogant attitude that it can always remake the world. Several years ago after a tough campaign, environmentalists convinced most Hollywood studios to stop using endangered rainforest hardwoods to built movie sets. But it seems Hollywood still just doesn’t get it when it comes to respect for the environment.
Q. Was there actual damage to the beach?
A. This is currently being fought out in a Thai courtroom. According to the Associated Press, villagers, local officials and environmentalists represented by The Lawyers’ Society of Thailand have filed a $2.6 million lawsuit against Fox, the Thai production company and the Royal Forestry Department which gave permission for the filming. The Hollywood Reporter newspaper, covering the trial, says “photographs from the area show an unsightly scene with bamboo fence poles sticking out of the once shrub-covered sand dunes,” and quotes environmentalist filmmaker Ms.. Ing K, as stating: “It takes over 100 years to create a sand dune. They are very delicate structures and very difficult to restore.” On the other hand, The Reporter quotes Fox’s Thai lawyer as arguing that the rainy season after the filming, not Fox, was the cause of the damage: “It is obvious that the monsoon weather has done lots of the damage to the beach recently,” he said.
Q. Why pick on this movie when other movies have damaged the environment in locations all over the world?
A. Many wrongs do not make a right. Every harm to the environment should be objected to, every time. My mission is to help my country, Thailand, and its underprivileged children. Fox knows the weakness of third world countries: "money." Therefore, they played on this weakness in order to bypass national policy. Fox's action goes directly against the grain of what I would like to teach the children -- that is, to live a life of high integrity, sound morals, and to have social and ecological awareness.
Q. Why criticize Leonardo DiCaprio? He merely starred in the movie, he didn’t make the decision to rearrange the beach.
A. For better or worse, celebrities have great sway over the public so their work and values become matters of public interest. Fortunately, most actors, including Leo DiCaprio, do accept moral responsibility for the films they act in. DiCaprio has said: “I don’t want a bad reputation as somebody who endorses something which is hostile to the environment. That’s upsetting to me.” (Quoted by E! Online, Nov. 1,1999.) That’s good. And it’s good that DiCaprio has been appointed chairperson for Earth Day 2000 in the United States. Why, then, did he not protest Fox’s machinations on Maya Beach? Why did he say, “Fox took meticulous care. If I’d seen evidence to the contrary I wouldn’t be happy.”? (Quoted in The Mirror, Oct. 30, 1999.) Could it be that this spokesperson for Earth Day really doesn’t understand the idea of not disturbing ecosystems in national parks, that he just “doesn’t get it”about the environment?
Q. What should Fox do?
A. Fox and the film’s producer should simply issue a statement saying, “We made a mistake. We should not have disturbed nature in a national park. We apologize.” Then, they should restore the harmony they disrupted by donating a portion of the movie’s proceeds to Thai villagers, local government, environmental and humanitarian organizations. We believe there is a duty of charity on those who receive disproportionate sums of money from our economic system, and an even greater duty when those same people have done wrong to the community. We all at FLF attempted to contact Fox and DiCaprio to suggest such a solution. We assumed Fox and DiCaprio would be donating to Thai environmental and humanitarian causes in order repay their moral debt to the Thai community. We told them of our orphanage programs and were prepared to act as liaison with other Thai groups that could receive donations. We hoped to elicit a public apology for what had been done to Maya Beach. But we received no response—not even a refusal.
Q. What is Fox doing?
It is defending the lawsuit in Thai courts. It is mounting a public relations campaign denying it did anything wrong. Outside Magazine for Jan., 2000 reports that “The environmental watchdog group EcoLert also gave a positive report [that damage to Maya Beach was non-existent], as did the independent organization Reef Watch.” But EcoLert’s press release titled “20th Century Fox’s ‘The Beach’ exonerated by EcoLert Investigation,” was issued from Culver City, in the heart of the film industry, and our attempts to locate any such organization in the telephone directory or in official California state records turned up no listing. An e-mail sent to EcoLert’s e-mail address received no reply. Someone needs to investigate who is behind EcoLert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles Times
December 27, 1999, Monday
SECTION: Calendar; Part F; Page 3
HEADLINE: COUNTERPUNCH; 'ANNA AND THE KING' HONORS THAILAND'S STRENGTH, BEAUTY
BYLINE: MALISSA DRAKE
BODY: As a Thai woman who has grown up in America, I was surprised that your usually perceptive film critic, Kenneth Turan, missed the boat when reviewing "Anna and the King" ("A More Real, Regal Siam," Dec. 17).
The film is the first serious treatment of the deep issues that arise from Anna Leonowens' account of her experiences as a teacher to King Mongkut's children in the 1860s. The earlier stage and movie musical "The King and I" was just so much Hollywood fluff and fun, and Yul Brynner's portrayal of the king as a piggish buffoon was an insult to the people of Thailand, not to mention history.
Yet Turan's main critique of the new movie is that there were no songs! "If only his majesty could be taught to whistle a happy tune," Turan writes, "he'd probably feel a whole lot better about everything."
To trivialize the film in this way is to willfully ignore its true subject: How does a small Asian country protect its ancient, delicate, highly refined culture and political independence from the onslaught of Western powers who see it only as another commercial opportunity to be exploited and who are annoyed at its "backward" tradition?
"Anna and the King" provides no cliche answers. It explores the question with subtlety and nuance uncommon in Hollywood movies. It finds both good and bad in both Eastern and Western values. But it does side with Thailand in its struggle to stave off the rapacity of the West, and King Mongkut is depicted as the intelligent, learned, humane ruler that he actually was.
* He and his successors shrewdly kept their country free from Western colonization during an era when Britain, France and the United States were chopping up Thailand's neighbors.
Modern Thai governments don't seem to be doing as well in preserving Thai culture. They have given in to the economic thinking of Western financial institutions and the World Trade Organization, resulting in the kind of go-go "progress" that unravels tradition and destroys the environment. Hollywood is reflecting this in a microcosm.
Ironically, the current Thai government refused 20th Century Fox permission to film "Anna and the King" in Thailand, fearing a repeat of "The King and I." But the government welcomed the filming of the same studio's "The Beach," starring Leonardo DiCaprio, which will be released next year.
The Royal Forestry Department gave permission to film on a pristine beach in a national park. Finding the beach not pristine enough, Fox shifted sand dunes with bulldozers, removed some plants and brought in 60 temporary palm trees.
Environmentalists protested and urged a boycott of "The Beach." A lawsuit is pending in Thai courts alleging that the beach was illegally destroyed. Fox and DiCaprio say they see nothing wrong with what they did, an attitude that should earn them the Ecological Illiteracy Award on Oscar night.
I suggest that everyone who is opposed to arrogant Western imperialism and who supports survival of the rich beauty that is Thailand boycott "The Beach" and see "Anna and the King" twice.
* Malissa Drake, a resident of Los Angeles, is president of the Forever Love Foundation for Medical Aid to Thai Orphans. She can be reached at foreverlove@forever-love.org.
Copyright 1999 Times Mirror Company
[ Back to the Press Room | Return to The Beach ]
