Some folks have been making a movie, purportedly about the life of Edie Sedgwick, for quite some time now. It was first noted on this site over two years ago, when Bob Dylan first threatened to sue, based on his depiction in the film, and then again a year later, as the press reported on the work in progress. The filmmakers had made some changes in the script in an effort to satisfy Dylan’s lawyers — letting it be known that the former “Bob Dylan” character was now a “composite” of various musicians Edie may have known, including Mick Jagger and Jim Morrison. The character was renamed “Danny Quinn.”

Come to find, the character wears a cap and a harmonica holder as he performs in the film. Critics who’ve seen early screenings come out with no real doubt that it’s intended to portray Dylan. Dylan’s lawyers, and presumably Bob himself, are not happy. The film is due for release on December 27th, or about two weeks from today. The New York Post reports:

The famed folkie’s pit bull lawyers have fired off a letter to producers Bob Yari and Holly Wiersma, and screenwriter Aaron Richard Golub, demanding the flick not be released - or even screened - until they see it to determine if Dylan, who they say has “deep concerns,” has been defamed.

Sedgwick, played by Sienna Miller, was Warhol’s brightest young star before spiraling into drug abuse and killing herself with an overdose of barbiturates in 1971. She got to know Dylan while living at the Chelsea Hotel, and legend has it they hooked up.

The original screenplay depicted the alleged relationship using Dylan’s name, and suggested he dumped Sedgwick - which led to “her tragic decline into heroin addiction and eventual suicide,” Dylan’s lawyer, Orin Snyder, writes.

…

Snyder warns the filmmakers: “You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that merely changing the name of a character or making him a purported fictional composite will immunize you from suit. That is not so. Even though Mr. Dylan’s name is not used, the portrayal remains both defamatory and a violation of Mr. Dylan’s right of publicity . . .

“Until we are given an opportunity to view the film, we hereby demand that all distribution and screenings . . . immediately be ceased.”

No reaction reported yet from the film’s producers.

Good for Bob for fighting the sleaze, is what I say. It doesn’t seem to me that Dylan could ever be described as overly-litigious. All kinds of gossipy and distorted books have been written, and I’ve never heard of an attempt to block one. We all know how much stuff is out there on the internet (even some nut who runs something called RightWingBob.com !). A film is different, however, in the lasting impression that it leaves in people’s minds. I have no idea how strong a case Dylan might have for stopping the film — I imagine the advantage is with the filmmakers, given the generous readings of the First Amendment that we usually see, and the fact that Dylan is a “public figure.” Nevertheless, it’s not like the filmmakers can claim they weren’t warned, very early on in the process.

As noted in one of my earlier posts, objections have also been raised by some members of Edie Sedgwick’s family, who have felt the film is merely exploitative.

The Post also tells us that:

… Lou Reed, who was part of the Warhol scene, is portrayed as “Lou Reed” by Brian Bell. But taciturn Reed isn’t complaining - yet.

Well, for the taciturn Reed, there’s probably no such thing as bad publicity at this stage (not that we even know if his portrayal is unflattering).

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• “Factory Girl” cont’d
• Note to Bob’s lawyers
• Stockholm etc.