Journalist Sues American Hustle Makers For Defamation Because Crazy Character Misunderstood His Article

from the that's-just-crazy dept

Thu, Nov 6th 2014 1:39pm — Timothy Geigner

Hey, remember that funny little trademark lawsuit brought by a software company against the Batman movie makers over fictional software that appeared in the film? Oh, I have one way better than that. Let me tell you about the lawsuit being brought by a journalist against the filmmakers behind American Hustle because a notably crazy character in the film totally portrayed said journalist's article from the 70's incorrectly.

Paul Brodeur, a real-life science journalist who has written for The New Yorker, is suing the team behind American Hustle for a reference made to him in the film. In the film, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) tells her husband, Irving (Christian Bale), that microwaves take “all of the nutrition out of our food.” When Irving calls the claim bullshit, Rosalyn responds, “It’s not bullshit. I read it in an article. Look, by Paul Brodeur.”

Brodeur’s complaint states, “Paul Brodeur has never written an article or ever declared in any way that a microwave oven ‘takes all the nutrition out of our food.'” Rather, it states, Brodreur has publicly denounced that claim, pointing to a 1978 interview with People Magazine.

And, as it turns out, Brodeur is actually correct about that part: he didn't claim that microwaving food took all the nutrition out of it. He made claims about the resulting radiation exposure being a problem, but nothing about nutrition. Even in the book, he wrote about all the myriad dangers of microwave energy, be it from ovens or from US and Soviet soldiers beaming them into each other's faces and stuff, but still there was no mention of nutrition. For this slight against his position, Brodeur is claiming libel, defamation, slander and false light, and would please like $1 million and the removal of his name from future prints of the film, mmkay?

Since he appears to have missed out on the character development in the movie, the character of Rosalyn is a complete damned whack-job who says innumerable crazy things. In other words, she's portrayed in a manner that renders the viewer completely incapable of taking her seriously or in anyway thinking anything she claims or says is valid. She's a manipulative sociopath. In other words, nobody watched this scene in this movie and immediately thought, "Ha, what a piece of shit Paul Brodeur is."

That's because the referenced article came out in the late 70's, featuring a subject nobody really cares about any more, and...whatever this is dumb, and I don't want to talk about all the reasons why. The point is, Brodeur wasn't harmed by a crazy fictional character misstating his position in an article from a time when John Lennon was reigning king.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: american hustle, defamation, false light, jennifer lawrence, microwave ovens, movie, nutrition, paul brodeur

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:48pm

Even though I think he's wrong, every lawsuit that hits the motion picture industry is deserved.
Copyright laws are to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FauxReal (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  Nope, two wrongs still don't make a right. Adding more bullshit to a fucked up industry does not help anyone. Except for the lawyers and to a small degree the journalists covering it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 7 Nov 2014 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  "Even though I think he's wrong, every lawsuit that hits the motion picture industry is deserved."
  
  This sort of thinking only increases the destruction of the law as a force for good in society. If justice doesn't apply to everybody, even to people and entities that we despise (rightly or wrongly), then there is no such thing as justice for anybody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
S. T. Stone (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:49pm

So…he’s suing because he misunderstood a movie character misunderstanding his article?

Someone get Chris Nolan in on this. We need to misunderstand deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  No, he's suing because his name is being used along with an inaccurate portrayal of what he wrote. It'd be like a movie set today having a stoner torrenting a movie and going "But Mike Masnick said copyright laws have no standing in D.C.!" when Mike has just been saying how D.C. has copyright law all wrong.
  I don't see how character development has anything to do with millions of people hearing that line. They didn't have to use his name, and they misrepresented his articles. This is a bit hyperbolic, but you can't just having "crazy people" walking around in movies stating things and saying since they're crazy, anything goes. This might actually be more legal assuming you can pull the satire/parody defense.
  I do wonder how this one plays out, because he seems to have a more solid case than LiLo, which was properly laughable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am absolutely certain you think you wrote something profound. I am a little less certain (but only a little) that you are alone in that opinion.
    
    I doubt that Mr Masnick would worry about your scenario and I'm pretty near certain he wouldn't file a B.S. lawsuit over it.
    
    If Mr Brodeur is harmed at all in this little fiasco, it will be by the Steisand effect - if any - that his silly lawsuit provoke. Although probably not, as it's a boring, little lawsuit from someone who's behavior strikes me as that of a boring, little person.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2014 @ 7:23pm
      
      Off Topic: Point of order Mr. Speaker
      Please pardon the digression, but did I miss a memo? Has everyone on the web forgotten the existence of the word "whose", or did somebody decide it's deprecated usage? Which of these do you think appears more correct in this instance:
      someone who is behavior
      
      or:
      someone whose behavior
      
      I realize few people these days have a clue how to use apostrophes any more, but contractions are simple things. Just expand it when you see one, and the meaning will be clear. I usually don't bother to Grammar Nazi (the web ain't [sic] Shakespeare), but I have just enough OCD that after seeing this in multiple places over the course of months, it just bubbles over out of my control.
      
      Ahh, I'm okay now. That'll keep me for at least a few months. Back to the show. Sorry for the interruption.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baron von Robber, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The character made an inaccurate portrayal of what he wrote. He should sue the character.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - New Mexico Mark, 6 Nov 2014 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Suing the character is a great idea. He could get "Law and Order" involved and have the trial in "Night Court". If he prevailed, he would be movin' on up to that deluxe apartment next to "The Jeffersons". Based on his actions, it sounds like this is what he is envisioning.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2014 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...have the trial in "Night Court"...
        
        Which, unlike real life, would be a really fast trial!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, this logic doesn't work because the only factor that even makes your perspective possibly work is that the person being referenced is still alive.
    
    Characters in movies (and people in real life) misquote, misunderstand, and misrepresent the views of published journalists, writers, psychologists, scientists, etc. all the time and nobody screams that such instances call for lawsuits and money paid to their estates or descendants. Politicians in real life misrepresent scientists all the time when they're trying to push an agenda.
    
    Why is this scenario special and deserving of a lawsuit more than any other?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 7 Nov 2014 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    "No, he's suing because his name is being used along with an inaccurate portrayal of what he wrote."
    
    Nonsense. Context is everything. The whole point is that the claim was being made by a character that is inherently and obviously untrustworthy. No reasonable person would take the claim as reflective of reality.
    
    "It'd be like a movie set today having a stoner torrenting a movie and going "But Mike Masnick said copyright laws have no standing in D.C.!" when Mike has just been saying how D.C. has copyright law all wrong."
    
    I agree, it would be like that. I don't see the problem with that, either. In both cases, the what the character is saying is obviously not the Word of Authority.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
psiu, 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:54pm

at the same time
Why oh why, did the movie makers name an actual person and an actual article he wrote (if misinterpreted) from 40 years back?

Would it have been so hard to have her say, "here, look at this article, it says microwaves take the nutrition out!" ?

Also, agree with first commenter -- if anyone deserves this sort of thing, these turkeys do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Brand, 6 Nov 2014 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: at the same time
  Don't worry. I'm sure the movie had the usual disclaimer at the end - the one that says that it's entirely fictional and any resemblance to any real people, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 1:58pm

What a coincidence. I'm suing the writers of American Hustle too. Because Rosalyn's line should have been: “It’s not bullshit. I read it in an article. Look, by that money-grubbing, thin-skined asshole, Paul Brodeur.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:28pm

"nutrution"? Looks like a typo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:42pm

now who is the crazy character
Paul Brodeur there you go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zem, 6 Nov 2014 @ 4:58pm

All we need now are the microwave manufacturers to sue both Brodeur and American Hustle, and then Intellectual ventures to sue the microwave manufacturers and we have a perfect circle of awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 6 Nov 2014 @ 8:55pm

And Maybe The Bundestag Should Get Up A Deputation ...
... to go and spit on Jon Belushi’s grave...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]