Judge X's out motions in Kaye lawsuit

HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - British director Tony Kaye's 18-month battle over his Oscar-nominated film American History X has entered a new phase with a federal court handing down some rulings in his $200 million lawsuit.

Kaye filed his suit last year, claiming that ``X'' distributor New Line Cinema and the Directors Guild of America rigged an arbitration on his request to remove his name from the credits, and also refused to let him use his preferred pseudonym, Humpty Dumpty.

The fracas broke out when New Line refused to use Kaye's cut. Kaye waged an often bizarre publicity campaign to publicize his plight, including taking out cryptic full page ads in the trades and gathering a support team boasting a priest, a rabbi and some Tibetan monks.

In a ruling dated Dec. 9, U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson has granted the DGA's motion to dismiss two of the seven key allegations contained the suit, but he also denied the DGA's request on one of the allegations.

Pregerson sided with the DGA as to Kaye's allegations that the guild had breached its own agreement and violated Kaye's First (protecting free speech), Fifth (concerning self-incrimination) and Fourteenth Amendment (granting legal protection) rights.

But he found the DGA's ``arguments are not persuasive'' as to Kaye being denied proper representation during the arbitration.

Kaye's camp claimed Pregerson's ruling was a victory. ``The DGA was more concerned about serving the producers than protecting its members,'' attorney Mark Lane said in a statement.

A DGA spokesman said Pregerson's ruling was not an evaluation of the merits of Kaye's case, only a decision as to whether the discovery phase of the case could proceed.

``The specific allegations he makes will be disproved in court,'' the spokesman said.

``X,'' a drama about white supremacist gangs, starred Edward Norton, Edward Furlong and Fairuza Balk. Released in October 1998, it garnered an Oscar nomination for Norton. It grossed a disappointing $6.7 million at the North American box office, and a respectable $16 million overseas (although it has yet to open in Japan).

Reuters/Variety

A federal judge has ruled against the Directors Guild of America in a case filed by director Tony Kaye, who wanted his name removed from the credits of "American History X" after Edward Norton substantially changed the film. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles ruled Dec. 13 in favor of Kaye's preliminary claim against the DGA that charged unfair representation in the arbitration process. Named separately in the lawsuit is the film's distributor, New Line Cinema, from which Kaye is seeking $200 million over the credits flap. Pregerson dismissed Kaye's First Amendment violation claim against the DGA. Kaye's demand to appear at the arbitration hearing along with the DGA also was dismissed but can be repealed, said Kaye's attorney Richard Rosenthal, who received the judge's ruling.

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Film Director Tony Kaye has been victorious in the first round of legal arguments involving his lawsuit against the Directors Guild of America in federal court over his request to remove his name from the film, ``American History X.'' United States District Court Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that the DGA's motion to dismiss the case against them was ``not persuasive.''

The Court's ruling followed a hearing of oral arguments by the seven member legal team representing the DGA and headed by Ernest J. Getto of the firm of Latham & Watkins and attorney Richard Rosenthal of the firm of Grakal, Root & Rosenthal, representing Kaye. The Judge's order stated that the allegation of the arguments of the DGA, ``when read in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs (Tony Kaye and Tony Kaye Films, Inc.), suggest that the DGA was hostile to the plaintiffs efforts to secure the use of a pseudonym.''

Kaye is also suing New Line Cinema for damages arising from the studio's decision to let the film's star, Edward Norton, edit the final version of the film. Kaye asserts that in addition to being denied the right to his ``director's cut,'' and personal investment of nearly three quarters of a million dollars into the film, he was also not permitted to remove his name from the film pursuant to the DGA's now famous ``Alan Smithee clause.''

Kaye's attorney, Mark Lane of Washington D.C., said, ``We are looking forward to the depositions and trial at which we will demonstrate that the DGA was more concerned about serving the producers than protecting its member. We will demonstrate that the leadership of the DGA did not share the relevant facts with DGA panel which voted to deny Kaye the right to remove his name.''

Flatbroke's comment

If you've noticed, the winner of this legal skirmish depends entirely on the version that you read. In order to know the extent of what you've read, I would encourage you to read all the articles that I have listed.

I did want to point out a few things from Kaye's press release that I felt were important. DGA made a motion to dismiss three of seven allegations made by Kaye, and the judge granted dismissal of two allegations but not the third. It is through this third allegation that Kaye's team claims "victory". There is no mention in his release of the other two allegations that bit the dust. Also notice that Kaye's release mentions his lawsuit with New Line and rather than merely say it was a disagreement between Kaye and New Line, Kaye's release states that it's due to the studio letting Edward Norton edit the film. The Reuters statement doesn't address specific reasons why Kaye wanted his name off the film. Notice that Reuters specifically makes reference to the "bizarre publicity campaign" by Kaye where he made his problems with the film, New Line, and Edward Norton pubic through full-page ads taken out in the entertainment trade papers. His ads and his efforts to make this disagreement public are not mentioned by Kaye's release, but these are supposedly the main reason why the DGA didn't allow Kaye to take his name off the credits. The DGA allows filmmakers to remove their name off of films (and replace it with the pseudonym "Alan Smithee"), however, they are not supposed to publicize the requests or disagreements over a film. Kaye also mentions in his release his own "personal investment of nearly three quarters of a million dollars into the film". But is this true? In an earlier article (Hollywood Reporter, 08/11/1998), a New Line spokesperson stated the following "Other than the ads, we haven't seen a penny (of that money)." Kaye's release also doesn't mention that one of the pseudonyms that Kaye was trying to use was "Humpty Dumpty".

One thing mentioned in the Reuters release that I do disagree with is that Reuters stated that New Line refused to use Kaye's cut-- there was no final cut by Kaye , he was asking for an unspecified amount of time on the film when New Line decided to move on without him.

AHX articles

---

American History X Main Page|| Photo Gallery || Press Kit || Articles || Multimedia || Lobby Cards || Quotes || Links

Main Page || Biography || News || Films || Articles || Photo Gallery || Multimedia || Site Map || Website Updates

Edward Norton Information Page Search edward-norton.org Search WWW Powered by

---

If you have new information on Edward Norton (and you can provide a verifiable and reputable source), please email me- Susan

Note: Articles and images have been posted without permission for noncommercial and nonprofit use with no intention of copyright infringement. The purpose of this reprinting is to disseminate correct information about the actors, films, and studios. I have included author names and links to sources whenever possible.