American History X

Tony Kaye is accusing the Directors Guild of America of violating his First Amendment right to free speech in connection with his long-running credits dispute on New Line's controversial new film, American History X.

Kaye, who directed the film, is trying to have his name removed from the credits but complains that the DGA won't let him.

Kaye said he wants his name off the film because the producers allowed star Edward Norton to participate in the film's editing. Those changes, Kaye said, "violated the concept of the film."

The DGA maintains that Kaye blew his chance to have his name taken off the film -- and to have it replaced with a pseudonym -- because he publicly revealed his request for a pseudonym and because he has publicly criticized the film while seeking to have his name replaced.

The DGA contract states that "as a condition for using a pseudonym, the director must refrain from publicly criticizing the film."

The guild's contract also stipulates that in order for a director to have his or her name taken off a film and replaced with a pseudonym, the director must agree "to refrain from publicly discussing the request for a pseudonym."

As DGA general counsel Elliott Williams wrote in a letter to Kaye's attorneys, "Under paragraph 8-211 of the basic agreement, the quid pro quo for a pseudonym is the director's promise to refrain from making public statements that may damage the employer's right to exploit the picture."

"I was astonished to learn that my own union, the Directors Guild, attempted to deny me the right to speak freely," Kaye told The Hollywood Reporter.

Kaye's attorney, Mark Lane, said he will seek a court order next week "holding that the provision of the agreement which denies a director the right to criticize the film while seeking to withdraw his name from the project is void as a violation of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Lane, who is perhaps best known as the author of the JFK assassination conspiracy book, "Rush to Judgment," said Kaye also plans to sue New Line for breach of contract.

Kaye has alternately tried to get New Line and the DGA to let him use various pseudonyms, including Alan Smithee and Humpty Dumpty -- to no avail. At one point in the dispute, Kaye and New Line attempted to agree on a new pseudonym, but when they couldn't agree, New Line filed an expedited arbitration to compel Kaye to accept a pseudonym he didn't want.

The DGA then stepped in on Kaye's behalf, won the arbitration and stopped New Line from imposing a pseudonym on Kaye that he found unacceptable.

The DGA insists that it has tried to "zealously protect" Kaye's rights but noted that the contract provision regarding pseudonyms is a two-way street and Kaye did not hold up his end of the deal.

"The director's ability to secure a pseudonym," DGA president Jack Shea said, "is among a wide range of creative rights the DGA has earned through hard-fought contract negotiations with the producers over many decades. The right to a pseudonym is not absolute or subject to unilateral determination by the DGA. Our agreement with the producers places certain obligations and conditions upon directors which they must meet in order to obtain a pseudonym."

Those obligations, Shea said, "include the obligation not to publicly announce that they have sought one, or to engage in public criticism of the film. These conditions were insisted upon by the producers and are part of our agreement."

"There is nothing in the DGA agreement that prohibits a director from individually negotiating greater rights," Shea said. "In fact, we encourage our directors to do so. Regrettably for Mr. Kaye, he did not address his desired greater rights in his individual contracts."

Shea went on to say that "while the guild does not make public comments about the internal procedures that affect our members, I will say that the DGA has always fought vigilantly for all of a director's creative rights, and we continue to do so. Any suggestion otherwise is simply not true."

American History X producer John Morrissey agreed, saying the DGA's rules make "total sense."

Morrissey said Kaye "engaged in a negative publicity campaign" against the film and that "there is a quid pro quo against that" in the contract.

"It is preposterous to remove your name and attack the film," Morrissey said. "The American media and the Hollywood film community are not designed as forums for every irate individual to exploit to his own ends. Tony has the right to object to anything he wishes to object to. However, if he disclaims his participation, then he abdicates that right, contractually and morally."

Morrissey also accused Kaye of "using the threat of removing his name from the film in order to win rights that he failed to achieve through contract negotiations. Tony did not have the 'final cut' of the film, and he sought, by using the threat of removing his name, to win the 'final cut' -- something he has failed to get through his contract negotiations, and for good reason: He is a first-time director. The DGA, I believe, does not support such tactics, and they are fully aware that Tony directed this film and executed 95% of the cuts. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate for them to permit Tony to remove his name."

HOLLYWOOD, Oct. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Director Tony Kaye announced today that he will file a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Directors Guild of America and New Line Cinema in connection with the film, ``American History X,'' which Kaye had directed.

Before Kaye had completed editing the film, New Line, in violation of the Basic Agreement governing the rights of directors and producers, invited actor Edward Norton who appeared the film, to enter the editing room. Norton's changes increased the length of his role. Kaye stated, ``The changes violated the concept of the film.''

Mark Lane, a prominent attorney practicing law in Washington D.C., stated that he is in ``the final stages of fine-tuning the complaint,'' which will be filed next week. The complaint asserts that the Directors Guild violated its own rules by refusing to permit Kaye to remove his name from the film, that the guild violated Kaye's right to due process by denying to him a hearing on that question, and that the guild took no action regarding the interference with Kaye's right to complete editing the film. The complaint charges New Line with the torts of ``interference with a contract'' and ``breach of contract.'' Lane said that ``Kaye will also seek from the court a declaratory judgment holding that the provision of the agreement which denies a director the right to criticize the film while seeking to withdraw his name from the project is void as a violation of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.''

``I believe a director should collaborate with anyone who has a suggestion to make. All I ask is that the person collaborate with me, not with my work,'' Kaye said.

Kaye also said, ``I was astonished to learn that my union, the Directors Guild, attempted to deny me the right to speak freely.''

SOURCE: Tony Kaye

---

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.