Hollywood Ethics?
Thursday, November 30th, 2006With Blood Diamond opening next week, the entire weight of the entertainment industry seems focused on examining how ethical the diamond industry is. But the same pressure from consumers for corporate responsibility applies to the movie business too. The Times in London recently published an article on the ethical practices of Hollywood, including Blood Diamond, called How Ethical Is This Movie? “The movie, set within Africa’s illicit ‘conflict diamond’ trade, has become involved in a very public debate about the nature of ethical film-making. Here, thanks to a scurrilously leaked, or concocted, media report about the movie’s allegedly cavalier attitude towards its African extras, the film-makers have been forced to highlight the existence of their own philanthropic Blood Diamond Fund. On top of the $40 million that the movie has pumped directly into the local Mozambique economy the fund has already raised an undisclosed six-figure sum for charitable works in the area,” the article says. The “allegedly cavalier attitude” comment refers to the report (denied by the filmmakers) that the filmmakers didn’t deliver on promised prosthetics for the amputee children who appear in the film. Gossip columnists also seized on the loss of a hand by one of the South African special effects technicians during his work on the film. The Times article notes some highlights of “Hollywood’s dirty history.” The Beach bulldozed Phi Phi Lay island in Thailand to create its set, Lord of War basically really did run guns, and the classic The African Queen’s director John Huston shot elephants while on set in the Republic of Congo.

The Village Goldsmith’s site is pretty rudimentary but it gets the job done. And the Village Goldsmith isn’t the only one mining jewelry niches. 


