Filming in Chernobyl

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Considering probably only about .05% of your audience would recognize Chernobyl... unlike say... the Empire State Building, a location shoot is completely unwarranted, even if it wasn't a nuclear waste land.

 

If you must get the actual location. Pre-Viz your entire film. Then show up with a digital SLR. And go shoot the entire film by yourself. It's the only responsible, economic, and probably legal way to shoot it. Just don't tell anyone you're "shooting" a movie. They'll just think you're getting a very strange selection of photos which you measure with GPS and a measuring tape + Compass.... of course the only way to do that is to give your pre-viz artists detailed maps and schematics so you know what you're shooting but it's cheaper than the liability insurance you'll likely have to have.

 

I've seen photos from someone who drove through on a motorcycle. Their digital pictures looked clear and fine.

[K Borowski]

First off: How the fu ck do you shoot a MOVIE with a DSLR??? Are you going to put it in MPEG 2 mode? Or didn't you know that DSLRs can't do everything, hell they can't do anything well. Second: film does NOT fog due to short-term exposure to radiation. I mean, look at Pripyat. I haven't seen any fogging at all throughout that film. If you're inside the reactor for long periods of time, then yeah, you'll probably need to line the camera with lead. Otherwise, I'd say the film is about as vulnerable as the film-crew is. I.e. it'll take 10s of hours of exposure to really start to mess things up.

 

Personally, I think doing a horror movie about a real-life horrific event, especially with cheap hollywood monsters is petty and disrespectful. To me it is no different than doing a movie about the ghosts of people living under the ruin of the World Trade Center. I mean, come on, it's a real-life tragedy> You don't need to make it any more dramatic with gimmicks. I'd be willing to take the risk and film there if it were to be a historical dramatic account of the incident, but I would never EVER crew for a project such as this. Risk my life for what sounds like a B-grade horror film? No way. . .

 

Watch Pripyat if you want to see a film that was worth being shot on location.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Karl Borowski

[Max Jacoby]

I've seen photos from someone who drove through on a motorcycle. Their digital pictures looked clear and fine.

I've seen that website too, but apparently it's fake in a sense that she never drove through there alone with a motorcylce but took the regular tourbus, posing with a helmet...

[Adam Kesher]

Thanks for the great input, guys! :)

 

First of all, I've taken the decision not to shoot on location (well that's probably a given). I'll start with location scouting as soon as the final draft is done, which will be sometime in late December. In order to get inspiration and prevent any danger for anyone but myself, I will travel to Chernobyl and take my nice little SLR with me and trust Mr. Borowski in that I will get good results.

 

Second of all, sure it sounds like a B-movie from the description I've given here. Mutants instantly make you think about the Hollywood kind of mutants, but as I said before, these ones still have a bit of their humanity left. They look out for each other, live in families, many of them are still able to make logical and ethical decisions and those who can't are helped by those who can. The story won't be about the mutants (I don't want to call them that, let's call them Others :rolleyes: ) hunting the polish adventurers down to feast on their flesh, instead they will actually have a logic conflict and communicate with each other, after the first shock has faded away.

 

 

**********WARNING!! WARNING!! HERE BE EXTREME SPOILERS!!***********

 

 

I can tell you this much: After spending 20 years in the Zone, the "Others" have adapted perfectly to the harsh conditions. There is of course a negative aspect to this; even though they are fertile and sexually active (this will NOT be shown, for those who wonder), neither them or their offspring can survive outside the Zone. As every group of beings, they seek ways to expand their territory. Here is where the polish people come into the picture. DAMN, now I've really given away too much :D. Somebody please stop me.

 

 

 

 

************WARNING!! WARNING!! SPOILERS ABOVE!! DON'T READ THEM GODDAMNIT!!***********

 

 

 

 

Well the point is that there will be a conflict, a rather interesting one in my opinion, and the outcome will be rather unexpected. If, when you see it, you still think it's a B-movie, well, then I didn't really fulfill my goals. Unless you like B-movies of course.

 

If you feel like it, please post some links if you know any to sites about abandoned towns and such. And yes, I will google. And yes, the possibility of not mentioning Chernobyl at all and make up a whole new story can be done, the actual site is not the most important thing, but I thought it would be more realistic and scary if people saw something they've heard so much about and recognise. But I totally agree that it is extremely disrespectful to the former citizens of Pripyat.

 

That's all for now.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Emil Larsson

[Bob Hayes]

"Chernobyl: A Chronicle of Difficult Weeks" is a must see. It is a fascinating film on every level. Documenting what happened. Documenting these amazing scientists who knew they were killing themselves but willingly did it for science and the Motherland. It is just crazy seeing the steps necessary to contain this disaster.

 

For example the nuclear core was filled with sand. When the meltdown occurred the sand became highly radioactive molten glass. After weeks of risking their lives they finally make it to the core and open it up only to find it is empty. The radioactive molten glass acting like water had left the core through a crack. They spent days and lives tracking it down and finally find it in a huge deadly blob in the basement. Amazing stuff.

[Alessandro Malfatti]

Emil, I must say your story sounds pretty sweet, although I must say that I recognize a little from "The hills have eyes"... mutants who didn't want to leave a place that was radioactive... but apart from that it sounds really cool, I'll be looking forward to watch your film. And about the radiation stuff... s'pose everything's been said, so my opinion on that is rather unimportant, but I think the story is really great.

[Brad Grimmett]

"Chernobyl: A Chronicle of Difficult Weeks" is a must see.

Sounds interesting Bob....Netflix here I come! Oh crap, I just checked and Netflix doesn't have it. Any idea where I can find it?

[Tony Brown]

What do you think about the story? (the little things I've revealed)

 

Seen it.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

First off: How the fu ck do you shoot a MOVIE with a DSLR??? Are you going to put it in MPEG 2 mode? Or didn't you know that DSLRs can't do everything, hell they can't do anything well.

 

Watch Pripyat if you want to see a film that was worth being shot on location.

 

*Gets self into propper communication mode to reply*

 

WTF Are you talkin about MNA! DSLERS are the SHiT1. THey Can do all kinds of things like take pictures you know, that are awsome!!!!! And then later You can like composite stuff over them!

 

*returns to normal*

[K Borowski]

*Gets self into propper communication mode to reply*

 

WTF Are you talkin about MNA! DSLERS are the SHiT1. THey Can do all kinds of things like take pictures you know, that are awsome!!!!! And then later You can like composite stuff over them!

 

*returns to normal*

 

Gavin: exactly. Sad part is, a lot of "professional" still photographers (i.e. businessmen) have this same attitude, like now their DSLRs can outresolve a viewcamera. I've heard similar things said about the F900 though that HD is "hyper accurate" and this somehow means a 2K camera outresolves 35mm; it doesn't. 35mm certainly isn't as "clean" as HD, but it is sharper, has higher dynamic range, and higher resolution, which would indicate that it is going to pick up more details than HD could.

[Greg Kowal]

what is your budget by the way? If you have money then why do you want to go to Chernobyl? create a set or use digital graphics... it really makes no sense to go there... there has been few documentries about Chernobyl and all of them were filmed at the location of the nuclear plant. I didn`t see any fog in the movie. But why risk going there and being exposed to radiation if todays computer graphics can recreate Chernobyl with no problems...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I have two words that can solve all of your radiation problems:

 

'George Borshukov': http://www.virtualcinematography.org/

[Stephen Whitehead]

I lived an hour and a half outside of Chernobyl for 2 years. Radiation levels have dropped to somewhat tollerable levels in the area. Having said this you still should filter your water with a proper system (you can't boil out radiation) and don't eat the mushrooms. I believe the plant itself was closed down only 5 years ago.

 

But having said that, don't go there. You can get the look of desolate soviet industry anywhere in the former soviet union, and cheap might I add.

 

If you want to get in contact with some people who know the film industry well in that part of the world drop me an e-mail.

[martijn]

Well for your equipment it isnt a problem to shoot in this radioactive environment. For your filmstock it could be a problem.

As the radioactive radiation could be compared with x-ray, it is both radiation and therefor energy. You should have to look how much the radiation is what comes of. And look at the spectrum, wavelenghts, your filmstock is being in.

I was talking with my sister about it this morning, she is a Chemist, so i can't give you a specific explanation yet like this is exactly what is going to happen. But what could happen that with the amount of radiation and the time of being in the radiation area is that the black level would go up a bit, so you sort of flash youre material in a very ugly way.

 

I think it will be such small amounts that you will not be able to see it but i can imagine that if you would make it a chemical test you would be able to trase it. But i find it quite an interesting topic so i think the coming days i will try to look it up!!!!

 

greets,

 

martijn van broekhuizen

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

George Romero shot a bit of one of his recent LIVING DEAD movies there, didn't he?

 

 

 

Almost....It was another Living Dead franchise...

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411805/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411805/locations

 

I've seen it and it really sucks hard. The chernobyl location was only used in the opening of the film, about ten minutes worth. It was not in the actual reactor area. The chernobyl "plant" was quite large and the place they filmed at is actually used as a "tourist stop", part of the actual/original set-up of the plant but a "safe-enough" distance from what I've read. Couldn't pay me to go... oh, no one has died or come down with radioactive sickness since filming stopped, FWIW.

 

As to it being in "bad taste"...I don't really care how shark attack victims feel about JAWS...so...lets not get carried away here.. ;) I personally hate these Docudramas and films on the WTC 'cause it simultaneously sensationalizes and degrades the actuality of the event all in the name "infotainment". Sick, but there is this thing called freedom. Morality is relative in any case.

 

-Jonnie

[Micah Fernandez]

As far as filming on the actual location, I have nothing further to contribute except to mention that our business is dealing with believability, not reality. I'm sure any capable outfit would be able to build a fake location that would be closer to what you as director would require than filming on ground zero. And that's minus the hassle of having a consultant for the radioactivity, wearing suits, lining sensitive equipment with lead. I highly doubt those "authentic" aspects of production would leak onto the celluloid and make a better movie.

 

As far as the story, if people here think that it sounds like a B-movie, it's only because you've pitched it as such. Group of crazy youths off on an adventure get more than they bargained for by stumbling onto a hidden secret that forces them to fight for their lives. Classic B plot line. :)

[Robert Glenn]

I am no expert on all this, but I would think that #1 you get permission, #2 you get a lot of lead vests like what they use for dental work.. or foil maybe. Put it on the ground under wherever you're filming or working at in order to keep gamma rays from exposing the film.. The radiation will come from the ground up I imagine... keep all of your film shielded in lead until the very moment that you need it.

Health-wise I think that apart from hot spots you'll be ok.. Enough time will have past so that most particulates will be absorbed by the fauna such that you won't be so much at risk of breating it.. alpha and beta particles are another issue altogether and I guess you'll need to talk that over with a nuclear scientist

[Pavel Mitov]

While permission will be hell to obtain (unless you have deep pocket, I guess), the radiation will most likely spare your stock. GThe radiation from the gamma rays (the only one that can penetrate through the metal magazine of your film) is long gone. You don't have to worry about the stock and you'll be relativelly safe provided that you don't sleep with days at that place... Currently, you'll get more radiation if you spend a month on a aircraft carrier, pass 100 times through an x-ray machine in the airports, or get 40 x-ray pictures taken in the hospital than to shoot for a several days there. Another question is how you'll manage to convince you crew and actors to join :D

 

Actually, alpha-particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper or your skin. As long as you won't ingest an alpha-emmiting source you are OK.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Pavel Mitov

[Max Jacoby]

Actually, alpha-particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper or your skin. As long as you won't ingest an alpha-emmiting source you are OK.

That line there sounds very familiar...

[Hal Smith]

The good news are that everyone will know that one or another form of mutants inhabit the town before they actually see the film ..........

Emil,

 

There's discussion by nuclear engineers and scientists in the following thread concerning what went wrong at Chernobyl. I thought you might find it handy for research while writing your script.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47795

 

For the curious (morbid?) there's discussion as to what went wrong at Three Mile Island in the thread.

[Dan Goulder]

The radiation will take some 600 years to decrease to tolerable levels again.

On the positive side, since this event took place 20 years ago, you'll still be left with only 580 years to work on your script.

[Rupe Whiteman]

... Channel 4 shot a documentary about Chernobyl recently and the area is very eeire - wild animals roaming deserted streets and towerblocks, with trees now growing out of abandoned buildings and in the middle of football stadiums. As the crew shot in the actual building they constantly monitored geiger counters and were not allowed to film for long because of the exposure...

 

It would truly be an amazing location to film in (and you wouldn't have a problem with crowd control!) but as a crew member I'd really have my doubts. A day or two fine, but a number of weeks?!; not for me thanks but no thanks!.. Humans aren't meant to glow in the dark...

 

- Sorry I can't remember the name of the doco but it was fronted by one of the Theroux brothers if that's any help.

 

Good luck with it,

 

Rupe Whiteman UK

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Did you mean this?

 

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Remember, that there are loads of good places to shoot in scandinavia that virtually deserted.

 

Check out also Estonia and maybe other baltic countries. If you do a little scouting you can find deserted places with a soviet "feel".

 

Hope this helps.

Actually, Belarus, Estonia, and countries in tha region have higher radiation levels because the entire redioactive cloud blew over them and rained heavy water.

 

Emil,

 

What i suggest you do is get lead lockboxes to store your film in, load your film inside of a lead bag or tent or whatever, and make a lead barney or blimp for the camera. You should keep in mind that when (i think) Faraday was in his laboratory he had uranium in a droor on top of photopaper and he discovered that the paper was exposed. Also keep in mind that light is visible radiation, and although incomparable, it may give you different film results.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Actually, Belarus, Estonia, and countries in tha region have higher radiation levels because the entire redioactive cloud blew over them and rained heavy water.

Heavy water is not radioactive. it is a moderator used for slowing nuclear reactions.

& occurs in one part to 5000 parts in standard water.

So don't expect it to rain heavy water.

 

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mheavywater.html

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm

 

Dont be unscientific.

Check your facts before you post!

 

---El Pedante

[K Borowski]

Sorry to make light of the subject, but with the less-than-serious story idea here, perhaps you could figure out a scale to meter film exposure with a Geiger counter? B)

 

Agreed, there is a lot of misinformation about radiation. Airline attendants and, I'd assume, pilots, get the equivalent of several hundred x-rays a year because our universe is naturally radioactive, from the Big Bang, presumably. When you go out into space, or up in the atmosphere in a plane alot, you don't have the Earth to protect you and you're bombarded with that radiation at much higher levels, still without any adverse effect. Radiation exposure is cumulative, and is based on your age. It's kind of confusing to measure, as there are different types of radiation, alpha, beta, gamma, different measuring units based on intensity, and harm to human tissue. So if you have someone say 20 yrs. old, radiation is going to be worse for him than it would be for a 70-year old, because the 70-year-old man won't have to worry (probably) about what he'll be doing in 50 yrs., whereas the 20-year-old probably would.

 

It's best (if you're still serious about doing this film) to consult with experts, probably people with the Ukrainian or Russian governments before you even attempt it. Again, this has been done before, as in "Pripyat", but by people that know what they're doing, not by indie "let's throw caution to the wind and make a zombie movie on the site of an international tragedy" filmmakers. Personally, if you showed up at my front door and said you wanted to make a zombie movie about a tragedy that occured to me, I'd want to hit you. Someone said that legally there's nothing wrong with what you are doing, but I firmly believe that, morally, there is.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl