speaking truth to power
I don't know which way the California Court will ultimately decide in the lawsuit brought by Dame Olivia de Havilland, and I'm not even sure if it should be decided in her favor. Both sides will have good points to make, and I am not an expert -- (if I had to hear the case, I would be like Reb Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof -- "You are right. And you, also, are right....")
However, the component which I think makes this 101-year-old Dignified Lady a heroine for two centuries is, that she felt she should stand up for herself and stand up for the truth (and -- her perceived right to not be lied-about) and she did.
At an advanced age. With, surely, plenty of money and living in some lovely space in Paris, France -- what is to be gained? With her career behind her, she's taking her stand on behalf of today's generation, and future generations. At her age, who in the hell would need the aggravation? You know?
This is what I'm saying. She is making the effort, going to the trouble, of doing what she believes is right. Braving "considerable forces" which "have amassed against her" in The Business, and a ravenous, hammering modern media, she is -- going to the trouble of doing what she believes is right, not for herself alone, but for everyone.
(I feel like proclaiming, in amazement, the enthusiastic vulgarity, "Fuckin-A!" but she surely would not like that. ...Or maybe she would say it's OK, it's freedom of speech, as long as no one makes a movie where she says it...)
_________________________
------------------------ [excerpt] ------------------ The last time
de Havilland had a case before the California Court of Appeals was in 1944. Risking her career, she sued Warner Brothers to get out of her contract, which she had signed in 1936. She had been suspended for refusing parts assigned to her, a common ploy among studio bosses to keep their stars in line, with the missed time tacked on to the length of her deal.
...She won then, tipping the scales of studio autocracy and strengthening a California labour statute. The so-named
De Havilland Law prohibits the enforcement of a personal services contract beyond seven years.
_____________________________
So the Court decided, in a manner of speaking, that a seven-year contract is for seven years.
__________________________________
----------------------- [excerpt] ---------------- Feud, she claims, is a work of historically convincing fiction... [which violates] de Havilland's hard-earned reputation for "honesty, integrity and good manners."
These are qualities that may seem quaint in the age of Twitter. But the legal action arrives during a content boom that has sent writers -- and big-league actors and producers -- raiding recent history sometimes before it has pickled, looking for figures and epochs to refashion as entertainment.
Courts have overwhelmingly supported First Amendment protections for movies and TV shows about figures and subjects in the public interest. But de Havilland is undaunted.
-------------------- [excerpt] ------------ De Havilland's character is used as a framing device for the Davis-Crawford cage match that unfolds in Feud. The opening lines of the series are hers: "For nearly half a century, they hated each other, and we loved them for it."
Zeta-Jones is posed on a love seat at the 1978 Oscars, giving an interview.
Feud meticulously copied the black dress and sheer kaftan the real de Havilland wore to the Oscars that night, as well as her glittering pendant and blonde coif. This physical copycatting is behind de Havilland's right-of-publicity claim. Her claims of false light relate to the interview itself, which she says she never gave.
To prevail, de Havilland will have to convince a jury not only that the interview was fabricated, but also that it includes sentiments that the writers of Feud either knew were false or proffered in reckless disregard for the truth, causing economic damage to her reputation and "emotional distress." Lawyers for de Havilland and FX are also engaged in a byzantine fact check over de Havilland's use of coarse language in other scenes, most notably in reference to her sister, Fontaine. --------------------
_________________________
failure to communicate
-------------------------- [excerpt] ---------------- [De Havilland's L.A. attorney, Suzelle] Smith maintains that her client, at a minimum, should have been consulted about the project ahead of time. "She would have considered, what was their proposal?" the lawyer said. "Are they proposing to compensate her?
They would have found out that certain things were not true.
Because they didn't even try, in their arrogance and hubris, they didn't take what we would argue are reasonable steps to find out what was true, and what wasn't true."
_____________________________________
legal observers were surprised
------------------ [excerpt] ------------------- The network says that de Havilland's consent was not needed, because Feud falls squarely under protected speech around fictional works in the public interest. Additionally, it contends that her portrayal is positive. ...
In August, the network filed a motion to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which allows for the quick dismissal of lawsuits that want to chill free speech.
One month later, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly Kendig issued her ruling: while Feud arose from protected speech,
de Havilland had adequately shown enough cause to deserve her day in court, with the suit fast-tracked because of the plaintiff's advanced age. [Oh, now look-a-there, her age worked for her, that time....]
Legal observers were surprised.
"It is unusual for this type of case to proceed past anti-SLAPP," said Jennifer Rothman, a professor at Loyola Law School.... If the de Havilland decision were allowed to stand, Rothman said, "then that upends the film industry, the TV industry, the video game industry. Anyone who is trying to make stories based on true events with real people are not going to be able to do so wtihout permission."
Though de Havilland has the backing of the Screen Actors Guild, considerable forces have amassed against her since the court victory....
_____________________________
{excerpts from
INDEPENDENT.co.uk
"Feud fight: Why a Hollywood legend is heading to court at the age of 101"
7 March 2018
Paul Brownfield}
_____________________________________
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment