August
2002
Surviving
Hollywood: TV and Movies Outfox, Outnumber, and Outright Lie
By William Onyango
|
|
|
U.S. filmmakers stand accused
of exploiting Africans with slippery offers while putting lives and
the environment at risk.
In fact, the most recent project to choose an African location, CBS’s
successful “Survivor: Africa,” is currently facing a lawsuit.
Local communities in and around the Shaba Game Reserve in remote northeastern
Kenya want $142,000 to compensate for disruptions during the production.
Meanwhile, in Mozambique the producers of Ali, last year’s film
about the beloved boxer, have been charged with trying to cut costs
at the expense of poor extras.
“They exploit people,” says Angela June, a pregnant 23-year-old
who agreed to appear as an extra for a scene shot in the rain. “At
the end of 12 hours, they paid me $20 rather than the $60 promised,
and so I left.” While she is aware that Mozambique isn’t equivalent
in terms of salary to the U.S., she points out, “People should
at least be respected as human beings.”
Blaise Nato, a spokesperson for Columbia Pictures, protests, “No
one was promised $60. The payment for scenes was negotiated up front
and there was no reneging on that.” Extras made $10 to 20 per day,
he says, and all company obligations were met. Pat Kingsley, a publicist
for director Michael Mann, adds that it was ridiculous for African extras
to think they would be paid as much as $60 when “they don’t
make that in a year.” A spokesperson for Will Smith, who plays
Muhammad Ali in the film, called it a disturbing situation, but demurred
that the actor had nothing to do with hiring extras.
Asked about a raffle, in which just a few people received prizes rather
than the standard cash compensation, Columbia insisted that this is
normal practice in the filming of large crowd scenes. People come for
the fun of being in a movie, explain spokespersons as a reason for nonpayment.
“So, why the choice of Mozambique?” wondered Milan Vesely,
a Kenyan journalist living in the U.S. “Why a nation still emerging
from a debilitating civil war? One with little government and no experience
in modern movie making?” The answer came from a production spokesperson
who told him, on condition of anonymity, that the producers knew the
extras could be paid little or nothing. And when local organizers insisted
that spreading money around in poverty-stricken Maputo would lead to
riots, that became the justification for the raffle. “At one time,
it was even considered that we give Will Smith T-shirts as payment,”
the source admitted. But this was rejected as “too provocative.”
Smith was allegedly “kept in the dark in this regard.”
Meanwhile, the Waso Trust Land Project, a non-governmental organization
in Kenya, is representing the communities that want CBS and Mwandinga
Productions to admit liability and compensate them for injuries and
damages to individuals and the environment. The communities include
Samburu and Boran, whose names were appropriated as titles for the
two “Survivor” “tribes.” Last September, a lawyer for
the NGO issued an ultimatum: admit liability and propose a settlement
within a week, or face a lawsuit. Not surprisingly, the network and
producers didn’t meet the deadline.
According to attorney Patrick Kiage, the communities, “whose survival
would, were, and will continue to be negatively impacted by activities
related to the shooting of this show, were neither consulted nor appraised
before the shooting of ‘Survivor III.’” He accuses CBS
agents of secretly signing a lease agreement with the Isiolo County
Council, which led to the takeover of huge tracts of land in the Shaba
Game Reserve between May and August. Tight security kept his clients
and other stakeholders from seeing “the enormous and disastrous
destruction of the fragile Shaba ecosystem behind the curtain.”
A preliminary environmental assessment of the reserve and its environs
after the shooting “is a testament to gross, callous, and actionable
degradation of...the environment and ecology of the treasured natural
reserve,” Kiage adds. “The sudden and violent intrusion of
a human population numbering 1,000 or more, the introduction of numerous
domestic animals, the construction of numerous huts in two villages
ringed by electric fences; the imposition of generators producing some
1,000 kilowatts at the George Adamson camp, not to mention horses and
light aircraft, all drastically altered the quiet wilderness nature
and character of the Shaba.”
“Survivor” was part of the first wave of “reality TV”
shows, which use contestants rather than actors. In June 2000, a press
release confirmed that the Kenyan Reserve had been selected as the hotly
contested location for the program’s third season. Subsequently,
the entire area was closed off to everyone except production personnel.
“Previously used in the highly acclaimed film Born Free, this location
is ideal for the river and scrubland background, adding just the exotic
touch the producers were looking for,” stated CBS spokesperson
Chris Ender. Some Kenyans were asked to sign confidentiality agreements
before being used to test “challenges” being devised.
Kenyan environmentalists became concerned about the effects that weeks
of production would have on flora and fauna. When members of the Waso
Trust Land Project and several journalists tried to enter the area to
investigate, they were detained by security staff. Upon release, they
met with the production team to discuss their concerns.
“Why were such heavy-handed procedures necessary to prevent local
journalists from inspecting what is normally a public game reserve?”
they asked. In response, Ender insisted that privacy had to be maintained,
but that series executive producer Mark Burnett always respected the
environment in which his shows were filmed. “He has learned through
trial and error how to return the land to the same condition, and in
some cases better condition,” Ender said.
Whether that’s true may be determined in court. Meanwhile, many
Kenyans still don’t understand what all the fuss is about. “Survivor”
won’t be aired on TV in their country: It’s far too expensive
for local stations. And other than some increased bookings at a nearby
hotel, notes Vesely, there will be little financial reward—unless
some locals negotiated Screen Actors Guild (SAG) wages. Asked how Africans
could reap greater benefits from Western TV and film productions, a
SAG official in Los Angeles replied, “Form a unionized association
of actors.”
Sounds reasonable. However, the Mozambique experience with Ali appears
to demonstrate that U.S. filmmakers have little regard for Africans.
During filming, reports indicated that the soccer stadium in Machava
resembled a detention camp. Thousands of young men rattled the locked
gates, pleading for something to eat or drink. This wasn’t what
they expected when they responded to flyers beckoning them to “come
and see the filming of the movie.” Promised food, drinks, and prizes,
they got nothing. By nightfall, after a full day in the stadium, the
filming still wasn’t finished. The extras were finally released
at four a.m., after being told that payment would be made only when
all the filming was completed.
“We were hungry, tired, and it was a dirty trick to play on people
who struggle just to survive,” said one extra, Madelena Muntimucu.
Claiming she was promised money as compensation, not a raffle or a prize,
she said that not even transportation home—yet another promise—was
provided.
William Onyango is a journalist with the East Africa Standard
in Siaya, Kenya. This article originally appeared in the December 2001
issue of Toward Freedom, a world affairs magazine published
in Vermont. Visit www.TowardFreedom.com or
call (802) 657-3733 to learn more
