Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
Leonardo DiCaprio Attacked in Defamation Lawsuit for Not Doing Enough Character Research
Hollywood Reporter: This is a legally hazardous time for movies and television shows that are loosely based on true events. Several lawsuits concerning fictionalized history are in the advanced stages with forthcoming decisions primed to articulate First Amendment principles and possibly set boundaries for filmmakers.
Oh boy... When I first saw this headline I laughed out loud, but after reading through the article, I can see how this bizarre legal issue might actually play out. It is an interesting thing to think that storytelling can have such an issue with balance of fiction and non-fiction. When you tell a story about an event that actually occurred in real life, it is not unrealistic to embellish that story in order to make it more intriguing or entertaining. Without these embellishments, I do not think that as many audience members would be willing to sit through the whole movie or storytelling experience, and therefore they are necessary. As theatre and film artists, our job is not necessarily to tell audiences an exact, true to life story, but instead to tell a story that will teach you something in one way or another. I hope that legal actions like this one are very thought through, and I am happy to have learned about such an interesting part of the entertainment industry.
Does a play or a movie, based on actual events have to tell the truth? On TV, shows like Law and Order are sometimes scripted based on actual events, but yet I don’t often hear of lawsuits surrounding those shows. I think that this case fails on its merits and i base that on my own study of and understanding of law. If we are to say that an event portrayed in a movie must be factual, then we run up against creativity and free speech. Liable and defamation are hard to try to win. There has to be intent. In this case, the writer based the movie script off of a book that was full of lies. Does that mean that the writer of the script is liable for those lies, or should it be the writer of the book? In this case, why not go after the author of the book for liable? In the original lawsuit, no mention is made that Bantam Books, the publisher is being sued. Why not? If you have a liable claim based on the movie that was written based on the book, why would you not have a claim against the author or the publisher? Is a book publisher just as guilty? Or is it that you want fame and a lawsuit against a publisher won’t do it? Maybe you’re just looking for a quick payday. Either way, I really don’t like cases like this. I feel that any decision in favor of the Plaintiff, Greene, would be a death knell to the creativity of screenwriters and actors.
I wonder if this is one of those cases where Greene is now more likely to be associated with DiCaprio’s performance than if he had never sued him. In this sense, the article reminded me of when the Right to Be Forgotten case from the EU was in the news. The man who wanted to have his information removed became only known for why he wanted the information removed. Anyway, this is an important decision because many movies that are based on real events change facts about characters. Whether the movie, book, or other medium combined characters or change their characteristics, it’s about what serves the story the best. If it is decided that in docudramas with real life based characters have to be accurately represented, this would severely change how these kinds of movies are made. It will be interesting to see where the courts decided artistic liberty starts to impedes on someone's character.
3 comments:
Oh boy... When I first saw this headline I laughed out loud, but after reading through the article, I can see how this bizarre legal issue might actually play out. It is an interesting thing to think that storytelling can have such an issue with balance of fiction and non-fiction. When you tell a story about an event that actually occurred in real life, it is not unrealistic to embellish that story in order to make it more intriguing or entertaining. Without these embellishments, I do not think that as many audience members would be willing to sit through the whole movie or storytelling experience, and therefore they are necessary. As theatre and film artists, our job is not necessarily to tell audiences an exact, true to life story, but instead to tell a story that will teach you something in one way or another. I hope that legal actions like this one are very thought through, and I am happy to have learned about such an interesting part of the entertainment industry.
Does a play or a movie, based on actual events have to tell the truth? On TV, shows like Law and Order are sometimes scripted based on actual events, but yet I don’t often hear of lawsuits surrounding those shows. I think that this case fails on its merits and i base that on my own study of and understanding of law. If we are to say that an event portrayed in a movie must be factual, then we run up against creativity and free speech. Liable and defamation are hard to try to win. There has to be intent. In this case, the writer based the movie script off of a book that was full of lies. Does that mean that the writer of the script is liable for those lies, or should it be the writer of the book? In this case, why not go after the author of the book for liable? In the original lawsuit, no mention is made that Bantam Books, the publisher is being sued. Why not? If you have a liable claim based on the movie that was written based on the book, why would you not have a claim against the author or the publisher? Is a book publisher just as guilty? Or is it that you want fame and a lawsuit against a publisher won’t do it? Maybe you’re just looking for a quick payday. Either way, I really don’t like cases like this. I feel that any decision in favor of the Plaintiff, Greene, would be a death knell to the creativity of screenwriters and actors.
I wonder if this is one of those cases where Greene is now more likely to be associated with DiCaprio’s performance than if he had never sued him. In this sense, the article reminded me of when the Right to Be Forgotten case from the EU was in the news. The man who wanted to have his information removed became only known for why he wanted the information removed. Anyway, this is an important decision because many movies that are based on real events change facts about characters. Whether the movie, book, or other medium combined characters or change their characteristics, it’s about what serves the story the best. If it is decided that in docudramas with real life based characters have to be accurately represented, this would severely change how these kinds of movies are made. It will be interesting to see where the courts decided artistic liberty starts to impedes on someone's character.
Post a Comment