Also, the "filmed without permission" is weird phrasing anyway. Does every indy movie in other countries get explicit permission from the government to be filmed? A Wiki article for, say, an Australian indy movie about queer people that covers Australian oppression of the indigenous wouldn't go out of its way to mention "the government didn't give permission for it to be filmed" because why would it? The government doesn't need to approve such project. Including the "government didnt give permission" feels like editorializing to make things sound more sinister then they are.

[–] shoop@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They operated for less than a month, could have gone unnoticed?

And no I don't think it's weird phrasing. It's absolutely common practice to get permits to film in public places and historic sites: https://www.thefilmfund.co/how-to-get-film-permits-and-location-releases/

If you're filming on private property your supposed to get they owners permission too.

If a Australian film did some guerilla filming I'm sure that would be mentioned in it's wiki because it can serve to promote the movie.

Edit: try googling "movies made without permission" https://www.dailyhindnews.com/top-10-movie-scenes-shot-without-permission-its-all-illegal/

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

It's absolutely common practice to get permits to film in public places and historic sites:

Lmao that's an entirely different thing than "you need government permission to make a film with a certain type of subject material."