brokeback vs the down low
January 29, 2007
All I can say is that I'm kind of impressed that both the Advocate and blacknews.com managed to report this piece of information without a shred of irony or richly deserved mockery.
Janice Scott-Blanton, the author of My Husband Is on the Down Low and I Know About It, filed a $250 million lawsuit claiming copyright infringement against Universal and the studios that financed and distributed Brokeback Mountain, reports BlackNews.com. Scott-Blanton claims there are over 50 substantial similarities between her novel and the Academy Award-winning film. An early bar scene in the movie reminded Scott-Blanton of a scene from her novel, but she chalked it up to coincidence until further scenes, including the first sexual encounter between Jack and Ennis, reminded her of her novel.
In Brokeback Mountain Alma confronts her husband Ennis about his homosexual activity during Thanksgiving dinner and tells him she purposely wrote a note and put it on his fishing line for him but he never found it. According to Scott-Blanton, this scene is strikingly similar to a scene in her novel wherein her character Annette confronts her husband James about his homosexuality on their ninth anniversary. James tells her he wrote a confession in his journal purposely, knowing she was secretly reading it. Both scenes are set in a kitchen.
Scott-Blanton will argue in court that the film is strikingly similar to her novel in terms of characters, plot, themes, and sequence of events. (The Advocate)
See also: BlackNews.com - Brokeback Mountain is On The Down Low and Author Janice Scott-Blanton Knows About It
To be sure, the blacknews.com piece appears to be a straight-ahead press release from the author's publicist or lawyer or some such, so there's probably not a lot of room to squeeze a bit of, "We think our client is nuts, but she's paying us, so we'll go ahead and do what she wants" irony into a press release.
Now, the proper thing to happen here would be for Annie Proulx to counter-sue (although, as she wasn't named in the original suit, technically, it wouldn't be a countersuit, but never mind). After all, given that her short story came first by some considerable amount of time ("Brokeback Mountain" was originally published in Close Range: Wyoming Stories in May 1999; My Husband is on the Down Low... seems to have first appeared in print in March 2005), Ms Proulx can allege that Ms. Scott-Blanton copied her work.
Of course, the other question is: didn't the lawyer do even rudimentary discovery before filing this case? Didn't anyone try to dissuade her or show her evidence?
I would imagine the case will be thrown out of court; I don't know if it's even possible to dismiss civil cases with prejudice, but this would certainly seem to fit, if that's possible.
Posted by iain at 01:16 PM
you take romance, i'll take jello
January 24, 2007
Aaron Sorkin has a new pitch for all those viewers who did not fall in love last fall with “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” his behind-the scenes look at a late-night comedy show.
Try it as a romantic comedy.
When the show returns Monday with a two-month run of new episodes, “we happen to be falling into a period where there’s a lot of romantic comedy on the show,” Mr. Sorkin said Tuesday during a meeting with television journalists on the show’s set at the Warner Brothers studio in Burbank. “Hopefully that is going to bring some people who wouldn’t have otherwise been interested in the show,” he added. The emerging interoffice romances will revolve around several of the show’s main characters: Matt Albie, played by Matthew Perry, will rekindle his romance with Harriet Hayes, played by Sarah Paulson, while Bradley Whitford’s character, Danny Tripp, will disclose his relationship with his boss, Jordan McDeere, played by the obviously pregnant Amanda Peet....
...Oh, dear.
Oh, dear.
So basically, for the nonce, Sorkin is retooling Studio 60 to be an hour-long version of Sports Night. Which would be fine, if the romance landed or was believable ... but it isn't. It really really REALLY isn't.
Leave aside the fact that they've never given us any reason to believe that Harriet (played by Sarah Paulson) is the comedy genius actor that they keep telling us that she is. After all, that's not really relevant to the romance angle. Leave aside the fact, that, even in concept, most of the sketches they talk about sound either deadly dull, so insulting that they'd alienate even people who kind of agree with their viewpoint, or just plain not funny. (People, a commedia dell'arte sketch in this country will never ever EVER land. It requires too much background knowledge to ever be funny.) Leave aside the fact that, for the most part, the most interesting aspects of the show have involved Jack (Steven Weber) and the character played by Ed Asner -- and when the most interesting parts of a show about making a television show are about the business of making the show, you have some real issues.
Leave all that aside. Let's focus on our romantic couples, shall we? Let's shall.
In this corner we have Matt (Matthew Perry) and Harriet. Matt is running hot and cold, for no easily expressed reason, and Harriet is both confused and tired of it. It would be understandable if he were having qualms because he is, despite their past romantic history, her boss, and going after her is, as a matter of law and company personnel regulations, sexual harrassment. (It doesn't matter that he hasn't, and would never, threaten her job or force her to sleep with him. It matters that he's her boss, and that the company they both work for almost certainly have regulations in place that say, in effect, "The boss shall not engage in sexual or romantic conduct with any subordinate, forever and ever and always, on pain of immediate dismissal." After all, regardless of how voluntary it may be, if the relationship ends badly, the subordinate can always scream sexual harrassment and be believed in that situation.) However, aside from an early early qualm, none of that is coming into play.
What has periodically come into play, and what should be given more focus except that it would kill the romance, is that Matt has no respect for Harriet's beliefs. She's a very religious person, and he has nothing but contempt for her religion and the organizations for which she works. Whether or not that contempt is deserved is entirely beside the point; what it says is that he simply does not have any regard for her mind or her choices. (For the sake of sanity, we will ignore the fact that Matt was entirely willing to give a hefty chunk of change to an organization he loathes, purely to keep Luke from having a date with Harriet. We will also ignore the fact that apparently the idiot, in his quest for an organization opposed to pro-abstinence Catholics to which he could donate an equal amount of money, has never heard of Planned Parenthood or other well known educational organizations. We will even ignore the fact that Harriet herself doesn't like the organization giving her an award. If we don't ignore all that, our head will explode and we will wind up talking about ourselves in the third person plural ... yes. Well. Moving on.)
Harriet understandably seems to resent both Matt's lack of respect for her and the fact that he continually preaches at her. What has never been clearly articulated is what she sees in him, aside from the simple fact that he's attracted to her, that gets her past his lack of regard for her beliefs.
Studio 60 seems to be aiming for a Hepburn-style relationship with Matt and Harriet -- by which I mean either Katharine Hepburn/Spencer Tracy or Hepburn and Cary Grant, take your pick. The idea is that it's going to be that sort of itch/scratch, push-me/pull-you relationship: screaming, fighting, snapping at each other and then suddenly they're kissing frantically and thinking to themselves, "Wait ...what just happened here?" The problem is that, in this relationship, they've taken the wrong tack. Lack of respect was, typically, an issue in the Hepburn/Tracy relationships, and those usually started with the audience understanding that the lack of respect was essentially due to lack of information, and showing how that lack of respect got rectified. Typically, one or the other of them got the information they needed to understand the other as much as they were going to, or the erring Hepburn would correct her ways as much as she was going to. (Well, this was the 40s and 50s, after all.) However, Matt and Harriet don't lack information about each other -- if anything, they know too much to make this relationship believable except as something purely physical -- and neither of them seems likely to change anything major about themselves. The Hepburn/Grant relationships were distinguished by the same lack of information leading to lack of respect -- corrected in the same way -- or by massive charm offensives, or by realizing that they'd always loved each other, despite everything. Studio 60 seems to be aiming for Philadelphia Story/High Society territory here; however, it's worth noting that it only worked in Philadelphia Story because a charming outsider (Jimmy Stewart) and a charmless outsider (whoever the guy Katharine Hepburn started out engaged to was) stood in stark contrast to what they'd had, and made them realize what they really wanted. That option isn't easily available here; the guy playing Luke is not Jimmy Stewart, and is barely seen besides, and there's no counterweight on Matt's side to make the balance apparent.
They can probably find some way to make that romance -- if nothing else, Matt Perry and Sarah Paulsen are good actors, and do seem to have some chemistry together -- but it's not at all clear that they should, and even if they do, it's not going to be terribly believable.
(2) Danny and Jordan:
This is the romance that makes you think that maybe Sorkin and Schlamme need to get themselves a clue. Because this simply cannot, does not and should not work.
Leave aside the fact that, in the last episode before the break, Danny's interest in Jordan came as, quite clearly, a complete surprise to her. Leave aside the fact that, again, it would be spectacularly inappropriate for either of them to pursue this, given their working relationship. (Actually, don't; we'll come back to this point later.) Leave aside the fact that, given the turmoil going on in Jordan's personal and professional lives, most of which Danny knows about, perhaps what she would like best at this point is a friend, which she thought she had. Leave aside the fact that having 48 people fax romantic recommendations to Jordan was, as she said, unprofessional, inappropriate, and utterly humiliating. Leave all that aside, for now.
The fact is, Jordan said NO. She did not want this relationship. (And this was either bad writing, or scenes trimmed for time: the audience should have seen Jordan reject his advances at least once before the confrontation at the end. As it stands, she says, "I told you no, three times," and all we can think is, "She did? Oh. Well, then. Ick. But ... she did?") She apparently said it clearly and repeatedly.
And Danny refused to accept it.
Now, to be sure, in any romantic comedy, there's some sort of obstacle for your romantic hero or heroine to get past. But ... it cannot be structured like this. On the business side, Jordan is Danny's boss. His fax blitz not only publicly embarrassed her within her industry, it brought his attentions into the office in a truly inappropriate way -- after all, her secretary receives and no doubt reads her faxes before she gets them. Moreover, she's now in a very awkward situation; she can't take what would be normally appropriate actions to end his interest -- such as writing him up or firing him -- without both exposing herself and the company to sexual harrassment charges, and damaging the show and her working relationship with Matt, who seems to be guiding the show fairly well as its head writer. On the personal side ... they took one character that we're supposed to like, who we've seen badgered and beleaguered by people that we know aren't really on her side (and threw another character at her from that angle in the bargain), and made her badgered and beleaguered by someone we thought was on her side. She had to plead for the simple right to be left alone, and that plea was rejected out of hand.
To be fair, I thought the scene at the end between Jordan and Danny was either misplayed or misdirected for the effect they wanted. For the sort of romantic comedy itch/scratch push-me/pull-you they needed, Jordan needed to be either tightly controlled and angry or flaming over-the-top furious, but tired and quiet was simply the wrong way for that to head to romance and comedy. And Danny needed to be angry back at her; that way the scene would have felt more like an argument between romantic equals. As it is, it feels like Danny has all the power in this relationship; he can keep annoying Jordan, and there's just not a lot she can do to make him stop.
I have a horrible feeling that Jordan will wind up calling in either Jack, both indirectly and as their ultimate supervisor, or Matt, as Danny's friend and coworker, to try to get someone to sit on Danny. Either one is going to be lethal to her character's credibility as someone who can run a network.
I don't know that romantic comedy could save Studio 60 from the morass that it's in right now. But it's certain that these romances, as they're currently being approached, really cant.
Sad thing is, the one thing that landed in Monday night's show was, of all things, the drama. The conflict between Simon and Darius felt very real, and mostly hit exactly right. The story with Jack and Wilson White kind of worked, in the sense that it's fun to watch Steven Weber and Ed Asner working together; there is the slight headscratching that businessman Jack has suddenly turned First Amendment warrior, and that Wilson White has suddenly turned into an old codger from the rather sharp person he was before, but it was still enjoyable to watch.
Posted by iain at 12:13 PM
scissors with malice?
January 16, 2007
In the summer of 2002, when Theresa Turcotte found out that Augusten Burroughs had written a book that was already a best-seller, she was happy for him. [...] Her curiosity piqued, she went in search of the book on the Internet. It was then that she got her first inkling that it contained enormous amounts of information about her family. She would ultimately discover that her parents, herself, and her four sisters and one brother, renamed the Finches, were actually a major focus of the book. And, she says, Burroughs had never told her he was writing it, despite his phone calls to her in the late 1990s.
The character based on Theresa is named Natalie, and in her first appearance she is described as a "ratty" 13-year-old. In the next reference she has "long, greasy stringy hair and dirty clothes." In the next five pages she is described "spilling crumbs down the front of her striped halter-top" from a tube of Pringles and wiping "her hands on her bare knees" and using the word "cunt." As she continued to read, Theresa says, she found it difficult to fathom the book's malice toward her and her family. It was filled with things that she believed were categorically false or had been wildly embellished. She also could not believe that Burroughs had revealed details about events in her life that had occurred 20 years earlier and had been horribly painful for her—so painful that she had spent years in therapy trying to overcome them and had never told her own daughter about them.
She continued to read that night, occasionally stopping because she simply could not bear to read anymore, she says, only to pick the book up again several minutes later. Sometimes she had to stop to run to the bathroom and vomit. "I have never vomited so much in my life," she says.
And it was only the beginning of what she says she would be forced to grapple with as a result of how Chris Robison, as she had known him before he changed his name to Augusten Xon Burroughs, had portrayed her in Running with Scissors. Only the beginning of the shame and humiliation and unwanted exposure and helpless outrage and sense of betrayal that, in roughly 35 hours of interviews with Vanity Fair, members of the real family that Burroughs wrote about say they experienced. The story they tell is just as disturbing and shocking as Burroughs's story, perhaps even more so. [...] The family has filed a lawsuit against Burroughs and the book's publisher, St. Martin's, for invasion of privacy and libel. The suit, filed in the summer of 2005 in Middlesex Superior Court in Massachusetts, charges that Burroughs and St. Martin's intentionally fictionalized the portrait of the family to make the book more sensational and therefore more marketable. The book, says the suit, "falsely portrays" the Turcotte family as an "unhygienic and mentally unstable cult engaged in bizarre, and, at times, criminal activity. In so doing, the author, with the full complicity of the publisher, literally has fabricated events that never happened and manufactured conversations that never occurred." Both Burroughs and St. Martin's, speaking through the publisher's general counsel, Paul Sleven, deny the allegations in the suit and refuse to comment on anything that the family said.
Burroughs claims he has roughly 20 notebooks in which he kept a journal of his experiences between the ages of 12 and 17 that back up his story, and he says he has continued to keep these journals with him. Family members confirm that Burroughs wrote constantly when they knew him. There is also an extensive public record regarding Dr. Turcotte, a highly controversial psychiatrist whose license to practice medicine was stripped in 1986 due to allegations of deeply disturbing behavior. Additionally, there is an author's note at the beginning of the book saying that "the names and other identifying characteristics of the persons included in this memoir have been changed." [...]
It's going to be interesting to see how this lawsuit works out. If Burroughs really exaggerated and changed things to the extent discussed, it's going to be difficult for him to win. A jury is going to hate him, with a certain amount of justification. That said, depending on how much of what he alleges can be documented -- although I would think the journal of a teenager who knew at the time that he was having certain mental issues would be of dubious use -- a jury may not be exceeding fond of the Turcottes as well. And there's also the issue that they do concede that a few events happened; the issue for them is that he invaded their privacy by making those events public. While a jury may feel the same way about things, that thread of American law seems to have fallen out of favor of late. It used to be valid to assert not that the allegations were false, but that the person making the allegations had no right to make those issues public. That seems no longer to be the case.
What really gets me is the quotes at the end of the article:
..."It is very painful," [Burroughs] said, his voice dropping, as if he too had been betrayed. "And it's also painful to have your childhood questioned, to have the experiences you went through, you talk about, questioned."
He used a tellingly dramatic anecdote to explain his feelings. "I used to have nightmares all through my 20s and 30s that I was in the [Turcotte] house again, in the TV room, but no one else was there—they were in the next rooms. [I] felt the worst panic that I have to get out of here. [I'd] wake up and I'd be like, 'Ah, it was just a dream.' And then they went away after I wrote the book. Now they're back. "[The suit] felt like 'Oh no. When am I going to get away from this family? When am I going to be able to get away from this childhood? When can I get out of the house?'"
It was a remarkable statement, given that it was Burroughs who chose to make his personal history public by writing Running with Scissors, not the family. Just as remarkable as when he looked at me with utter sincerity and said this of the family he had written about: "I hoped that they would recognize themselves and love it," he said. "I hoped [Theresa] most of all would love it." Then, once again came the low and wistful tone, the aggrieved memoirist: "But that's not what happened."
OK, now what even vaguely sane person would think that they could have liked how they were depicted in that book? Dr Turcotte is depicted in engaging in conduct just short of felony child abuse, and abetting and encouraging the same. Burroughs revealed personal things about them that nobody would have wanted revealed at all, let alone in that way. He deliberately held them up to public scorn and ridicule. What reasonable person could possibly have wanted that?
Posted by iain at 01:27 PM