Makers Of Spotlight , Winner Of Best Picture Oscar, Admit They Fabricated A Character's Dialogue In The "True Story"
Stipulating that the movie is mostly true, it is almost beyond belief that the movie would suggest guilt on the part of a real person who was not guilty, by putting words in his mouth for dramatic effect. I hope they paid him a lot of money in this settlement.
-------------------------------------
'Spotlight' Makers Reach Settlement With Real-Life Figure
BOSTON — The makers of the Academy Award-winning movie “Spotlight” have acknowledged that they fictionalized dialogue attributed to Jack Dunn, a trustee of Boston College High School, who was portrayed in the film as being part of the cover-up of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal. In reality, Mr. Dunn sought to help victims of abuse and advocated for transparency in communications.
In a statement on Tuesday, the film’s distributor, Open Road, said: “As is the case with most movies based on historical events, ‘Spotlight’ contains fictionalized dialogue that was attributed to Mr. Dunn for dramatic effect. We acknowledge that Mr. Dunn was not part of the Archdiocesan cover-up.”
Mr. Dunn had threatened legal action if Open Road did not remove the scene in which Gary Galone played him. The film, which won Oscars for best picture and best original screenplay in February, dramatized The Boston Globe’s investigation into the cover-up.
As part of a settlement, Open Road agreed to cover Mr. Dunn’s legal fees and make donations in his name to two charities. All legal actions have been dropped.
“This agreement will never end the painful experience of being falsely depicted in a film, but it gives me the opportunity to move forward with my name cleared and my integrity in place,” Mr. Dunn said in a statement. He said he hoped the agreement “causes Hollywood to reassess how it portrays scenes in movies that claim to be based on actual events,” adding that a movie about the worst scandal in church history did not need to be fictionalized for dramatic effect.
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
Not a good look for a prestigious movie.
It undercuts their message when they lie like that.
Hollywood is "false front world" - fiction on film. Think of those old abandoned Western towns with false fronts on all the buildings. The deception should be expected, but to tell an outright lie and thereby slander an individual is fodder for a great lawsuit.
I think if they invent dialogue , for say, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King it might be somewhat understandable since it was so long ago and the people are dead. This person is still quite alive and the incident was only 10 or 12 years ago. I am surprised the film makers would do that.
Dead people (according to the law in Canada, at least) have no status to sue for libel or slander. But even in that case a filmmaker should provide an on-screen caveat that not all the facts or dialogue may not be accurate, sort of like what they indicate that characters in a movie are fictional, or that no animals have been harmed. I the person being depicted is alive they should require the signed approval of that person to the script.
That is what they usually do Buzz, this seems more like someone dropped the ball and didn't either thoroughly vet the story, or felt that is was so far from reality they could avoid a charge of libel.
It is good that he called them on it.
Just reread my post - I meant that they should provide a caveat that not all the facts or dialogue may be accurate (not "may not be accurate").
Yes and I agreed, not a general "this is a dramatization" but a more specific "this movie is drawn from a real life incident, and has been altered from fact for dramatic effect"