There has been an interesting court case going on in Florida that has had my attention. Basically, the family members of a couple of the characters from “The Perfect Storm” were suing the studio for breaking a law that prohibits commercial use of someone’s name or likeness without their consent. Sounds like a fair law to me.
Well… the family members were not only NOT asked for permission by the studio, but the families are also quite upset by how the movie portrayed the characters with material that was not based on fact (stuff the studio made up). The good folks at The Globe and Mail give us the following:
“[Clooney] played a dark character, sort of a Capt. Ahab in that he was so consumed with chasing the whale that he lost sight of safety and more prudent concerns,” said Stephen Calvacca, the lawyer who represented the families, who live in Bradenton. “That never happened. That part was false and the studios knew it.”
The lawsuit failed. The court decided that that the Florida law can’t be applied to movies and other forms of entertainment because the law was written to protect people from being used to promote products. I really disagree with this. The selling of products and the marketing of films are both forms of market business. One should not be distinguished from the other.
However, there was precedence for the ruling in a similar case involving Bob Dylan where a person failed to sue the entertainment industry over a similar cause:
Patty Valentine suing Bob Dylan, claiming his song Hurricane falsely implied that she was part of a conspiracy to wrongly convict prizefighter Rubin “Hurricane” Carter of murder.
So basically the previous court decision gave this court no choice but to throw the case out. But it still doesn’t feel right to me.
The lawyer for the Studio was obviously happy with the decision. But his comments just gave me chills:
“We are thrilled that the Florida Supreme Court so resoundingly affirmed the principles of free expression that were at stake in this case,” said Warner Bros. spokesman Scott Rowe. “In rejecting the plaintiffs claims, the Court upheld the rights of all artists, whether filmmakers or authors, to create works that are inspired by real events without being forced to interpret those events in a particular way.”
So according to the Studio, free speech means you get to make up false stories about people that make them look bad… call them “True Stories”… not get their permission or the permission of their families.. and that’s free expression?!?! I also love how he called telling the truth as being “Forced to interpret those events in a particular way.”
I don’t know… this one is a sensitive subject. How would you or I like it if it was our dad who died on the Andrea Gail… and then some studio makes a movie… using material they just made up on their own… that makes our dad look like a greedy bastard who put the lives of himself and his crew in jeopardy over greed… and then marketed it as “Based on the true Story”.
Studios should be free to tell stories… yes… even ones “Based” on true stories. However, I think if you’re going to portray a person (such as an average Joe), then you should at least be accurate… and if you can’t be accurate, then get their permission or the permission of the families. I don’t know… it’s a tough one. But this story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth that Hollywood gets to do whatever they want and aren’t held accountable to the rules everyone else has to follow.
It’s kind of scary… this decision basically means the Studios can make a movie on my life… called it “Based on a true Story”, and put in scenes where I kick kittens and molest children… and totally get away with it. Something is wrong with this picture.
Bit of a hard subject this.
I agree with you statement Dave(“When we talk about movies, we talk about entertainment”), but by “we” I take it you mean the more enlightened moviegoers, the ones who bother to research movies on the net and look into the facts.
The sad fact is that the majority of people DON’T look up the truth behind movies.
Ask the majority of people who have seen U571 who saved the enigma machine? Doubt the answer will be the British. Maybe movie disclaimers need to show be broadened.
Freedom of speech ! Here, now and always !
Still, it is a very difficult discussion, with different aspects to the questions.
When we talk about journalism (written and audio-visual), they should respect to the letter all the facts, and avoid personal opinion or subjective camera-shots and angles when covering stories.
When we talk about movies, we talk about entertainment. People should know that by now. MOVIES ARE FICTION, even with the “based on true events” -tag. This tag is mostly placed with a promotional intension behind it. Yes, the Holocaust is fact, but √¢‚ǨÀúShindler’s List√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ is FICTION !! based on true events, shaped by Steven Spielberg. There are different versions of Shindler and they are not all that respectable as it was represented in the film. So is the √¢‚ǨÀúPassion of Christ√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢, √¢‚ǨÀúAll The Presidents Men√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢, √¢‚ǨÀúIn the Name of the Father√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢, √¢‚ǨÀúMonster√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢, yes even √¢‚ǨÀúTitanic√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ for those of you who had any doubts. Why is it fiction: well because we need to dramatise reality to make it interesting for a big audience, and secondly, because it belongs to the characteristics of the medium. Even a documentary can√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be considered as fact. It is closer to reality, but not reality (Fahrenheit 9/11)
Personally, I think the judge made a good decision, but it should be analysed case by case. Freedom of Speech mustn’t be an assault on personal freedoms (as the right of privacy and the right to your own name and image). If there is a conflict, the studio should change names and implement some radical changes in the depiction of the character.
But in the case of Perfect Storm, I don’t see an immediate negative portrayal of the character. They probably smelled cash and thought they should stand up. And this kind of attitude makes the discussion very difficult. Some people do exploit their rights in a negative way. There is a big discussion going on in Europe with extreme right-movements claiming the right to their scandalous racist opinions as freedom of speech. But this is another angle of the story.
I believe that cinematographic world is a very subjective one, because we actually look through the eyes of a person and hear what he wants to tell us, while when we read an article we don’t see what he sees; we only read it and can take it easier under reflection. But the question remains, what is TRUTH. Maybe the truth is a reality that we have made up, with which we can all agree with. In any case, when we go to cinema, whatever happens, we must learn to accept the fact that what we see is told from a very personal point of view.
To close, I remember the famous words of Katharine Hepburn “I don’t care what they write about me. As long as it isn’t the truth.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4477983.stm
This is an interesting contrast to the movie lawsuit, a British court ruled that David and Victoria’s former nanny is entitled to sell a story about the couple to a (tabloid) newspaper despite signing an employment contract with a confidentiality clause because the story is in “the public interest.” Admittedly the Beckhams do not appear to be disputing the truth of the article, only the breach of contract. Also English law is very different from America’s on free speech matters so I’m not drawing any specific parallel.
Three fisherman snuff it and we think Hollywood and the studios have done a bad thing. What about all the ‘historical’ war stories they have been re-telling over the last 10 years. U571 for instance, piece of crap movie but it was a British story completely retold with Yanks as the major players, isn’t that shitting on the grave of some brave UK men and women?
On a shallow note: The Perfect Storm was a great poster, dung pile movie though.
I think as long as a production doesn’t claim to be true, as indicated by the disclaimer, the First Amendment needs to be broadly applied. If any stricter standard is imposed then no movie based on true events could be made because one or more of the people involved would simply not give permission and you’d never get another Silkwood, All the President’s Men or, and I’m not putting it in the same quality category, Perfect Storm. Conversely, this decision does not bar lawsuits alleging slander or libel as far as I can tell from the linked article nor should filmmakers, novelists or songwriters (or bloggers) be immune from them.