WTF?!? Another Borat lawsuit? (spoiler warning)

[-..__...]

If lawsuits are any measure of a persons success, I guess Cohen has really made the big-time..

"A Saugus woman is looking for revenge for being caught on screen horrified while guerrilla comedian Borat stands naked in an elevator with jewelry sticking out of his rear end.
Valerie Simpson is lining up to possibly sue actor Sacha Baron Cohen, star of the wildly popular movie, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” for being duped."

Snip... 8<

" And that was that, until five months later, when an employee of 20th Century Fox called to let her know the director wanted to use the hotel scene in a small comedy/documentary. She agreed and was paid $600 for her role."

But why would she do such a thing?

"The movie, which has grossed $111 million to date, features an incident that left her shaking in fear, she said."

Ohhh, OK... nevermind. Now it all makes more sense.

:eyes:

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=170054

[FARAFIELD]

1. MUCH SUCESS!!!!!!

Jagemesh, I like you, you like me!?
Borat is awesome, I always thought he (borat) was the best part of the D'ali G show. By the way you never see the jewelery sticking out his ass. And a another thing, no body made her sign that release.@!!!! The part with the Drivers Trainer in that Movie is a classic.

[AtomicKitten]

2. usually payment is accompanied by signing a release

And, after all, it was all good fun for the cultural learnings of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan.

[eyesroll]

3. Hehh...my torts prof and my contracts prof disagree on whether those releases wil be enforceable.

My torts prof tends to think so (because the release is very, very detailed and included just about everything under the sun)....my contracts prof says no way (because the plaintiffs seem to have been defrauded, and many courts won't enforce a fraud release).

[madmusic]

5. What the basis for fraud?

Just curious?

[eyesroll]

8. I've not seen the movie or paid a lot of attention to the hype, but my torts prof said

the people who signed the release were told that the footage would be used only in Europe. The release, of course, allowed the footage to be used throughout the universe...so this will basically hinge on whether evidence that the signers were told the footage would be used only in Europe is admissible at all (parol evidence?) and if so, if it's credible, and if so, if the "you can't sue us even if we lied to you outright" clause is enforceable (torts prof = yes; contracts prof = no).

[Hissyspit]

6. I think they are both right in their own way. It ultimately depends on what

judge or jury you get. Borat is pushing the limits and therefore he/they are in uncharted territory, so to speak, not that these "candid camera" types of art/entertainment/satire haven't been done before, but that they have been pushing them even further. But the delay in filing a complaint works against her. It is not the whole issue, but it is definitely something the Borat lawyers could use to argue their case, as well as the whole issue of free speech/expression, being in public, etc. I think the idea of "fraud" is highly debatable.

[Hissyspit]

4. She smells money. n/t

[twenty4blackbirds]

7. so...what's her name? can we make fun of her now?

Loved it how Borat's first interview was with a humour coach. Sets up the interpretation of the outcome of the movie. Punk'd! or as others might call it, Candid Camera.

on edit: what a maroon is Valerie Simpson. ... Not!

I don't get this bit

Simpson is now looking for legal advice on whether the producers of “Borat” violated the California Unfair Practices Act by failing to disclose the true meaning of the scene and misrepresenting the movie as a whole.

No one knew for sure it was gonna gross a lot. They just hoped it would. How could that be misrepresenting the movie? :shrug:

on edit2: un-intentional pun kept.