Originally posted by plawrence:
to suggest that the fact that some people might be offended by such a film's content is a valid reason to not make the film in the first place is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
Not as ridiculous as you may think. Do you happen to know what the content of the film really is?
Of course not. That's why I suggest that we wait until the film comes out before criticizing it.
As I said....
Originally posted by plawrence:
As far as the film itself goes, why don't we wait and see exactly how everything and everyone is depicted before we pass judgement on it.
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
There's no reason, at least by these widows, to wait and see how everything and everyone is depicted, they already know how it is going to be done, and according to them it is not being done in a truthful or tasteful manner.
Key words: "
According to them it is not being done in a truthful or tasteful manner."
"Tasteful" is a matter of opinion, so I won't even go there.
"Truthful" remains to be seen, and if the films proves to be un-truthful then Stone will be subject to the same criticsm from the same detractors who felt that the fact that
JFK wasn't completely truthful detracted from the film because filmmakers have an obligation to be truthful about their subject matter.
Personally, I don't.
I believe that filmmaking is an art form and, as such, can be a bit freer with the facts than a history book, for example.
Originally posted by plawrence:
No one, not Oliver Stone, not you or I, no one, is under any obligation to adhere to the wishes of the survivors of any of the victims of 9-11.
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
You way off course with this statement Plaw, because when a movie director and his consultants are telling the story about two men who died that day, who left behind small children and wives, and one of them, Officer Pezzulo, died saving someone who is now a consultant on this movie, and the other one, Officer Christopher Amoroso ( see picture below ) died because after going in and out of the building 6 or 7 times and saving hundreds of people, returned for maybe the 8th time hoping to rescue more, and never made it out on the 8th try, you bet your ass that these two survivors, who were saved by these men, have a life debt obligation to adhere to the wishes of the widows of the two men who gave there own lives so that these guys could go home and hug their children again! It's the least that they can do to honor the memory of those two men who gave their own lives and afforded them the opportunity to go on with theirs!
Taking the feelings of these widows would be the respectful thing to do!
Well, if that's the case then the problem is with these two guys who are the "consultants", not with Stone.
Yeah, if it happened the way you're describing it, I personally would be grateful to these guys for saving my life and I would do everything I could to honor their memories, and yes, it would be the respectful thing to do.
But what I don't understand is this:
Is Stone being misled by these guys? Did Stone have a pre-conceived notion of how he wanted to tell this story? And if he did, why hire these two guys as consultants in the first place?
What is their role as consultants? To describe the events, or simply paint a picture about what it was like to be there?
Do we know for sure what role Ameroso and Pezzzulo played that day, and exactly how that role is being depicted which is contrary to the facts?
A lot of unanswered questions here.
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
When you take a job as a Public Official, such as a Port Authority Officer or a Fireman, you forfeit your families rights to you if you die in the line of duty. In other words if you die in the line of duty, the public has the right use your name in the making of something that occured in real life, something like 9/11.
So unfortunately they cannot sue Stone for using their husbands name in the movie. And obviously Stone and those consultants are aware of this and that is why they've decided to tell these two ladies SCREW YOU and do things the way that they want to.
THAT'S the outrage here. Not the making of the movie itself, but what the contents will now be so far.
Wait a minute....
I'm no lawyer, but I don’t think you are correctly stating the facts here with respect to the legalities.
Yes, because “public officials” are involved here, their real names may be used in a film because as public officials they are considered to be in the “public eye” – and just like actors and actresses, sports stars, politicians, and other celebrities, the use of their real names by others “comes with the territory” so to speak.
HOWEVER…..
The fact that they are public officials
does not exempt Oliver Stone from abiding by the libel laws.
Just because they were public officials, that
does not give someone the right to write or say libelous things about them and be exempt from a lawsuit.
The problem, though, is that the protection of our libel laws
does not extend to people who are deceased, the reasoning being that you cannot defame the reputation of a person who is already dead (as illogical as that may be).
Our laws have precluded family and friends from filing a lawsuit in cases like this because defamation is viewed as a personal injury to a reputation, and the law has pretended that a “reputation” dies with the individual. Obviously, it does not, and the reputation of a dead husband or father
should be considered important to their spouses and children.
BUT…..
There are various legal avenues open to the survivors here.
For example….they can sue Mr. Stone for intentional infliction of emotional distress, like if it can be proved that Stone knowingly depicted events falsely
Also, family members could bring an action against Mr. Stone for economic damages arising from an injurious falsehood.
Suppose, for example, that people see the movie and come away with the false impression that these guys acted in a cowardly manner on 9/11, which causes them to withhold contributions that they were planning to make to some type of “Widows and Children of 9/11 relief Fund”.
There are also criminal liability laws which may be applicable here, but I’m not sure how they work
vis a vis lawsuits involving monetary damages.
