Okay so have you heard about the lawsuit that some DEA agents are filing against Universal Studios because of how the movie American Gangster portrayed them? They are claiming “defamation of character” because a statement at the end of the movie says that three-quarters of New York’s drug enforcement officers were convicted as the result of Frank Lucas’ cooperation. Now according to the DEA and the NYPD, there were actually no law enforcement officers convicted during the investigation. Still, is there really a need for these people to file a $50 million dollar lawsuit?
The lawyer for the DEA agents, who was actually the lawyer that convicted Lucas in 1975, says that he doesn’t know what the movie’s writers and producers were thinking but they are going to pay. This just seems really ridiculous to me. I mean come on people it is just a movie. In fact, one of the DEA agents said that “if they had said the movie was based on a false story then things would have been better”. Now is it just me or is it common sense to think that the movie’s producers would alter Frank Lucas’ story for dramatic effect? Even the spokesman for the NYPD said that suing Hollywood every time reality was distorted in a movie would be a full-time job.
Now I get that some of these DEA agents were actually part of the Frank Lucas case and want to protect their honor or whatever, but what really annoys me is that these few agents searched out everyone who worked for the department between the years of 1975 and 1983 to join them in the suit, 400 people all together. That just sounds like someone saw the opportunity to make some money and took advantage of it. I mean it is like the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilt hot coffee on her lap, and claimed she wasn’t warned the coffee was that hot. This is just another example of people being "lawsuit crazy".
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well, in this case it could be considered libel, a form of defamation. It was an outright lie, and the film did make that false information public. I could actually see this lawsuit gaining some significant ground. Inherent to the film industry, viewers do need to maintain a suspension of disbelief- I agree with you there. But especially in the context of a historical drama, distorting the truth and outright lying are separated by a thin line.
Films like Braveheart, Rudy, and Apollo 13 have distortions and dialogue, etc. added for movie-worthiness. But none of them change the intent or course of the story.
I enjoyed reading this a lot. It raised questions and made some good comparisons- I laugh every time I think about one of the many silly suits against McDonald's. One thing that strikes me as odd, though- I'm not that familiar with this story, do you know when the suit was filed? It seems to me that before releasing the film, they'd have had to have some approval from the DEA and NYPD.
Well... I personally hate it when movie's portray people a different way than they actually are because there's always people who will believe what they see and hear on a screen. So actually I would sue the company, but not for money. I would sue them for the lawyers fees and to make them amend their movie and admit to the public that their statements were fictional. By amend I mean either mass recalls, or something less severe, depending on what they actually said in the film...
-Cheez Out-
Okay, so I could definitely understand doing this. I think that if these DEA agents were really out to preserve their reputations and the reputation of the New York drug Enforcement Agency then they wouldn't be out for so much money. In fact, in their suit they didn't ask for any alterations to the movie, they just wanted the money.