Anyone else find it odd that the film had the usual disclaimer? (any similarities between actual persons is purely coincidental etc). I realise there has to be some sort of disclaimer as some of the story was based on rumour and speculation but as it is based on real people I don't see how they can put the usual disclaimer on.
shareI know your post was ages ago, but I just saw the film a couple of days ago & I was struck by exactly the same thing. I guess they just stick the standard disclaimer on everything? Maybe even biopics? That would be weird.
Anyway, it's good to know that someone else read the credits through to the end!
I thought the film was ok too - not a classic, but well-made & worth watching.
[deleted]
Thought it was probably some sort of legal thing, just thought they might change the wording a bit as it was clearly about real people. I suppose they don't want to risk getting sued so putting the standard one is safer!
http://www.silentfilmstars.weebly.com
It's probably that it happened so long ago, it no longer matters. I think that disclaimer is generally only used when people the story is based on are still alive or recently deceased. The ones who might possibly sue are long dead, and as noted, the rumors have been out there almost since the moment it happened. Any and all evidence is long-since gone, as are the witnessses and those involved. If decendents of Hearst or Ince were to sue, it would only make a lot more publicity for a film that came out and disappeared with limited viewership and not much fanfare. I'm sure they realize a lawsuit would be (a) pretty pointless, (b) finally dredge up long-buried family secrets, and (c) open themselves and their ancestors to public scrutiny and for little point. They'd also be unable to prove that either the movie or even the long-standing rumors did any damage to their families or their reputations. And perhaps Bogdanovich did it that way just in case someone tried to sue and thereby creating free publicity for his project.
share