No question The Impossible has great acting and a heart wrenching plot. However, for a film that declares to be based on true events (the story of a Spanish family played by British actors), the choice of a British white family is a deliberate one at putting profit over art and truth. Other choices, like focusing on Thailand, which wasn't the epicenter of the disaster, also add to this poor judgement. To have a Spanish director, but to be able to even commit to a Spanish (at least Spanish-speaking) cast, even that... The truth here is that big names of white actors like Watts, McGregor and Holland most definitely sold/sells the movie far more than Spanish names, even well known ones would have, forget about native Thai actors or South Asian actors even. This is then not just a reflection of how racist/white washed the film industry is, but also how racist we as film goers are. Imagine how well a film that would require Western (especially American) audiences to read subtitles would do (gasp!) We all know the answer.
However, the film industry is not off the hook. It is the artists' and film industry's responsibility to commit to diversity and true representation over mere profit (easier said than done, I know), especially when they claim things like "based on true events." This may be acceptable by law, but it't not nearly enough ethically. You can do better than this. Please do. I will watch even if the main characters are not white and privileged.
The film had opportunities to at least highlight the impact of the disaster on local communities, yet each and every one of these was missed. Let's say you had to have white actors, fine. Let's say you had to focus on the white people's struggle to get out and get back to their cushy lives, fine. But those opportunities to show the plight of the local people who were ALSO living the disaster, who also died and suffered and lost their only way of making a living/feeding their families and at the very least had to stop what they were doing and go help the rich tourists, who couldn't get the regular healthcare they normally could have due to their hospitals being overwhelmed by disaster victims, who were heroic, who made so many sacrifices for strangers... Those opportunities were lost here. There wasn't a moment where the hyperfocus on white people was lifted. There wasn't a moment when the white characters looked around them and counted themselves lucky and uberprivileged compared to the locals who had no escape, no charter plane to lift them off and up to Singapore. None, zero.
Even if this was a true story acted by people of the same ethnicity, even if it were absolutely true, I'd like the film industry to choose better which stories to tell, to spend all that production dollars on. Is this the best story to tell about this disaster? Does this story represent the story of more than 200,000 people who died? It doesn't have to, but when you claim it's a true story, and when you decide to spend sooo much money on this one story... maybe it should? Sometimes? Often?
I hope Watts, McGregor and Holland and others make better choices in the future and use their fame to help open and keep open doors for other actors who are not white and would/could easily have played these parts. Still, choosing a project like this over some romantic comedy (which would have made more money for these actors, I imagine (but I don't know for sure)) is a good deed and I applaud them for at least drawing attention to this disaster that took so many lives and devastated whole economies.
However, the film industry is not off the hook. It is the artists' and film industry's responsibility to commit to diversity and true representation over mere profit (easier said than done, I know), especially when they claim things like "based on true events." This may be acceptable by law, but it't not nearly enough ethically. You can do better than this. Please do. I will watch even if the main characters are not white and privileged.
The film had opportunities to at least highlight the impact of the disaster on local communities, yet each and every one of these was missed. Let's say you had to have white actors, fine. Let's say you had to focus on the white people's struggle to get out and get back to their cushy lives, fine. But those opportunities to show the plight of the local people who were ALSO living the disaster, who also died and suffered and lost their only way of making a living/feeding their families and at the very least had to stop what they were doing and go help the rich tourists, who couldn't get the regular healthcare they normally could have due to their hospitals being overwhelmed by disaster victims, who were heroic, who made so many sacrifices for strangers... Those opportunities were lost here. There wasn't a moment where the hyperfocus on white people was lifted. There wasn't a moment when the white characters looked around them and counted themselves lucky and uberprivileged compared to the locals who had no escape, no charter plane to lift them off and up to Singapore. None, zero.
Even if this was a true story acted by people of the same ethnicity, even if it were absolutely true, I'd like the film industry to choose better which stories to tell, to spend all that production dollars on. Is this the best story to tell about this disaster? Does this story represent the story of more than 200,000 people who died? It doesn't have to, but when you claim it's a true story, and when you decide to spend sooo much money on this one story... maybe it should? Sometimes? Often?
I hope Watts, McGregor and Holland and others make better choices in the future and use their fame to help open and keep open doors for other actors who are not white and would/could easily have played these parts. Still, choosing a project like this over some romantic comedy (which would have made more money for these actors, I imagine (but I don't know for sure)) is a good deed and I applaud them for at least drawing attention to this disaster that took so many lives and devastated whole economies.