I don’t really agree with Amanda Knox’s outrage here. “Inspired by real events” is common, and used in many TV shows and movies. Her case was extremely public, she is not entitled to have no one ever talk about it or fictionalize it. Actual use of her image in commerce and etc, to which she has legal rights, cannot occur without her being compensated. That hasn’t happened here, a fictional character whose story is only loosely inspired by her story, appeared in a fictional work with proper disclaimers posted. Something like half the episodes of old school Law & Order were taken straight from New York Times headlines, they would just change around enough so that it wasn’t a direct copy of the real event. This is basically what was done here, no harm no foul.
Guede has admitted his part in it, but it was a only minor part. All the evidence shows that he was not acting alone.
Not only that, but her career is now making a podcast essentially advertising herself.
I don’t know GreenWyvern, but I do have a friend from Italy. He is absolutely convinced, and reports he know many others who believe as he does, that Amanda Knox is complicit in the crime, if not actually guilty.
I don’t think I‘ve ever seen him so emotional about somebody he’s never even met. I have made sure to not mention her name in his hearing, because he will react.
We’re all conditioned to think “no harm no foul” because this is so common. But it isn’t really “no harm,” as she points out. She is adversely affected by the continued focus on her rather than the perpetrator and victim, and by the fictionalized version that still constantly ties the story to her.
I think there’s value in a broader conversation about our responsibilities to the real people who are affected by “based on a true story” entertainment. Just because it has always happened doesn’t mean we need to accept it blindly. That was the main point I took from her essay.
Except the movie is not about her, and as far as I can tell most reporting on this was making minor mention that it was an obviously fictionalized telling of her case until she started blasting about it which substantially raised her visibility in the matter.
I also will note no one has much issue with the 3-4 major films released about OJ’s case–and those actually mention him by name (which is actually allowed, you can do a movie about a real person without their permission, there’s just limits to how you can use their name and likeness to advertise or show endorsement of it.)
Bolding mine; I see a contradiction in that sentence.
You would be incorrect about that. It was the lead part of pretty much any content about the movie. The director found a way to bring it up in most interviews.
It’s a fair point. I’d argue that the calculus is different when the person is known to be guilty by any thinking individual.
I don’t think the rule is “absolutely no entertainment based on true stories.” But I think it’s worth considering the impact.
Allison Baker as portayed by Abigal Breslin != Amanda Knox.
Allison is from Oklahoma, Amanda is from Washington State.
Allison is living in France with her girlfriend. Amanda lived in Italy with a platonic roommate.
Etc etc.
This is a serious case of the Streisand effect, while the movie was certainly inspired in part by the Knox story, it isn’t 1:1. I don’t want to get into the various ways the crime and legal case are also different because it will spoil the movie; but they are materially different as well.
I do think if the story was a biopic, and she felt it libeled her, she would have ground to stand on at least to complain, whether she’d win a libel case is always iffy. The story is not a biopic.
Wait, it takes place in France? I thought it was some generic third-world shithole country from the previews.
And come on, just changing the location from one European country to another hardly makes a difference.
I disagree with your assessment. I have watched both the movie and followed it in pre-release, while the fact it took inspiration from the Knox case was never hidden, most of the pre-release content I saw on it before Knox interjected was focusing more on Damon and his portrayal of the fictionalized father character. Knox’s weighing in immediately shifted a lot more attention to her–since she runs a podcast and other things that monetizes her celebrity, it is likely this was done intentionally by her. Which, by the way, is perfectly her right.
Also the reason an OJ story is okay isn’t because OJ is all but certainly guilty, it is that it’s actually entirely legal to make movies about real events. You do not own the right to public stories that involve you. You own some elements of your name and likeness but you don’t have anything like a veto on what is published about you. If you did movies like Oliver Stone’s W or the movie Vice or such would never get made.
Keep in mind obtaining “life rights” about a movie are more about marketing and promotion than they are about legal necessity. If you obtain life rights, the person or their estate is going to help you promote their film, they’re going to be on TV shows and such saying “yes, I was consulted on this movie, it’s very accurate.” See: Lone Survivor or Sully, both of which were made with paid life rights agreements. If you don’t do this you may get bashed by the subject or their heirs, and if you get any “facts” wrong, you may face libel suits. See: Green Book which is about the real person Don Shirley. His heirs blasted the movie and created negative PR about it because the film was made without their permission. Had the studio obtained that permission with a paid life rights agreement, the heirs would have been contractually limited in what they could say about the film in public. Either they weren’t offered that money, weren’t offered enough, or they so disagreed with the premise of the movie they wouldn’t agree to it. That didn’t stop production, but it did result in poor PR.
The movie was still a critical and commercial success, though.
I spent years… literally… reading, discussing, and arguing about the fine details of this case on the Perugia Murder File forum (no longer in existence).
It was a board similar in many ways to the SDMB, and with many highly qualified people in relevant areas – senior police officers, forensic scientists, lawyers (Italian as well as British and American), as well as many intelligent people from all over the world simply interested in the case.
So I have no desire to rehash the whole case from the beginning here.
For anyone who wants to explore it further, here are some possibilities:
1. All the facts and evidence are collected and preserved on this site:
The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki Site
The site has all the plain, detailed facts and evidence – leaving you to draw you to draw your own conclusions.
You can read the summaries and FAQs, or go down the rabbit hole and look at the evidence in as much detail as you like.
2. If you are interested in a video overview of the case, I suggest you watch the 1 hour BBC documentary I posted above (here it is again):
3. If you want to read about it, I recommend the excellent book, Death in Perugia by John Follain, reviewed here:
John Follain is the Rome correspondent for the Sunday Times and has been following the case since it began. His book is a neutral retelling of events, from the British student’s murder on the night of 1 November 2007 to that acquittal a few weeks ago on 3 October. Death in Perugia is not a first-person narrative, nor one that expresses an authorial opinion on the guilt or otherwise of those on trial. Perhaps because of this objectivity, it’s a gripping read: a balanced, detailed account that allows the reader to respond to the central question: did they or didn’t they?
That’s pretty much how I feel.
Amanda Knox has the Golden Arches, we have the Golden Arcs
They got the Big Mac, we have the Big Mick (and our buns don’t have sesame on them).
It’s your prerogative not to address the apparent holes in the prosecution’s case.
But if (for instance) someone has a theory about the JFK assassination, how are you going to evaluate it – by the passion they express and the depth of research they claim, or by their ability to defend their conclusions?
How about the right to be left alone? Instead of being permanently linked to a crime she had no involvement in?
I mean, a hundred and thirty years later, everyone “knows” Lizzy Borden gave her mother 40 wacks. If she didn’t, that’s quite a legacy to carry.
I can defend my conclusions at any length you like, but I really have no desire to get into a lengthy, detailed debate on the subject again.
I’ve pointed you towards good, factual, objective, serious sources that do go into detail, and support my conclusions. It’s not necessary for me to further summarize those sources here.
If you first look into those sources and then have some questions based on a reasonable knowledge of the case, I’ll be happy to answer.
She might want to find another line of work, then, instead of one whose only selling point is her celebrity.
She tried that. She was harassed and stalked when she tried to get a normal job.
Also, have you listened to her podcasts? Are you confident that her celebrity is the only selling point? She has skill and discusses a lot more than that.
But we’re only talking about the movie because she spoke up about it. As said upthread, she may be invoking the Streisand Effect.