"All persons fictitious" disclaimer

Post Reply New Topic

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the 1932 movie "Rasputin and the Empress", in which the still-living Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia sued MGM for libel since the character of Princess Natasha is based on Irina. According to Wikipedia...

The film began with a claim that "This concerns the destruction of an empire … A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence." Reportedly, a judge in the case told MGM that not only was this claim damaging to their case, but that their case would be stronger if they had incorporated a directly opposite statement, that the film was not intended as an accurate portrayal of real people or events. Prompted by the outcome of this case, many studios began to incorporate an "all persons fictitious" disclaimer in their films, to protect themselves from similar court action.

So how can effective is this disclaimer? Is this the reason so many biopics, historical films, etc., make up the truth, even though it's dishonest? Shouldn't the movie makers be worried about being criticized for not sticking to the facts? A good example of that is "Braveheart". Another is "Patch Adams". Both of these movies got slammed for being less than accurate in their history. Sure, it may protect them from libel, but I would think critical reaction would be just as important.

To add further, how is it that "The Sound of Music" was able to escape criticism for being less than accurate, with all the liberties taken?

The disclaimer isn't needed for a film like Braveheart, Bobby The Bruce's descendents aren't in a position to sue even if they don't like how he's portrayed.

The disclaimer prevents suits over any alleged defamation, but other liberties taken don't really need the disclaimer.

Nothing can protect a film against criticism, only against legal liabilities.

How were Robert Bruce's descendants in no position to sue?

What about "The Sound of Music"? How could that get away with defamation? That one took a lot of liberties with the history of the Von Trapps, such as how they escaped from Austria (climbing over a mountain (which would have landed them in Germany) instead of taking a train via Italy). In fact, the film was a flop in Austria and Germany precisely because of the liberties taken. I also heard that the real Von Trapps hated the film (or at least they weren't in love with it). There's a whole article about this: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/von-trapps-html#:~:text=%22It's%20not%20historically%20accurate!%22,a%20true%20force%20of%20nature.

To that end, how come Austria or Germany or the Von Trapps did not sue due to the liberties taken?

Because they don't care.

Like Robert the Bruce's descendants include the entire British Royal Family, do you really think they care that one movie depicts one of their ancestors from centuries ago? And not all the tons of other movies, TV shows, or other fictional works that depict their ancestors inaccurately?

They don't because it's not defaming them to depict some dude who lived hundreds of years ago inaccurately to how they really were.

Heck, I'm distantly descended from Robert the Bruce and I literally couldn't care less. They could depict him as a 4 foot tall clown who only spoke in rhyme and it wouldn't bother me.

Also I don't think you even know what defamation is. To quote Wikipedia, 'Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place, or thing that results in damage to its reputation.'

The key part is at the end 'damage to its reputation', mere inaccuracies are not damaging to someone's reputation.

What about "The Sound of Music"? How could that get away with defamation? That one took a lot of liberties with the history of the Von Trapps, such as how they escaped from Austria (climbing over a mountain (which would have landed them in Germany) instead of taking a train via Italy). In fact, the film was a flop in Austria and Germany precisely because of the liberties taken. I also heard that the real Von Trapps hated the film (or at least they weren't in love with it). There's a whole article about this: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/von-trapps-html#:~:text=%22It's%20not%20historically%20accurate!%22,a%20true%20force%20of%20nature.

To that end, how come Austria or Germany or the Von Trapps did not sue due to the liberties taken? They certainly cared enough to criticize and react negatively to the movie's depiction.

He's a public figure and a historically notable figure, there's a lot more leeway when it comes to what one can say about them without it amounting to defamation.

You're allowed to lampoon such people without it becoming defamation.

But what about "The Sound of Music"? That one took a lot of liberties with the history of the Von Trapps, such as how they escaped from Austria (climbing over a mountain (which, in reality, would have landed them in Germany) instead of taking a train via Italy). In fact, the film was a flop in Austria and Germany precisely because of the liberties taken. I also heard that the real Von Trapps hated the film (or at least they weren't in love with it). There's a whole article about this: https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... f%20nature.

To that end, how come Austria or Germany or the Von Trapps did not sue due to the liberties taken? They certainly cared enough to criticize and react negatively to the movie's depiction.

I can only assume legal council advised them they lacked a viable case.

There's no point starting a proceeding that can't be won.

As for why it can't be won, you might need to consult with a German lawyer.

I don't speak German, so I can't communicate with a German lawyer.

What I really wanted to know was, why do critics complain about liberties taken with the source material, even they have no case?

It's really hard for me to articulate, just so you know.

Last edited by mharrington85 on 23 Apr 2023, 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sure the details of what they didn't like about it are documented, but not liking something doesn't mean one has the ability to do anything about it beyond publicly express their dislike.

Here's an article about it: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/von-trapps-html#:~:text=%22It's%20not%20historically%20accurate!%22,a%20true%20force%20of%20nature.

The liberties taken were not "defamatory". They didnt make the van Trappe family "look bad". It just made the story a little more dramatic, or consolidated into a shorter story, or less prosaic, or more...heroic even (ie the opposite of defamatory).

Folks usually sue if it makes them look bad. But sometimes they sue for the opposite. Some real veteran sued a movie that made him look more heroic than he actually was (I guess because it made it look like he had lied to the movie studio ...thereby actually defaming him).

Yeah. Siskel and Ebert didnt sue the studios of every film they gave a thumbs down to.

Imagine the studio suing over a bad review.
And S&E counter-suing because it wasted their time.

According to Wikipedia, the film was poorly received in Austria and Germany for the liberties taken. Austria took exception for the costumes, which did not reflect the traditional style and the replacement of traditional Austrian folk songs with Broadway show tunes. As for Germany, the Nazi theme was extremely unpopular, to the point where the Munich branch manager of 20th Century Fox actually managed to cut, without authorization, the entire third act, showing the Anschluss, thus ending the movie after the wedding. The filmmakers intervened and restored the third act and fired the manager.