Doesn’t most fiction include the statement: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
Case closed.
Surely the question is whether Nona Gaprindashvili had played against men at the time when the scene is set. If she had not, Netflix ought to be in the clear because the character is speaking from the perspective of 19-whenever, not 2020.
Yes that is explicitly covered in the OP. She beat 7 of 9 male competitors in the 1968 Gothenburg tournament, and the fictional action is set in 1968.
Except their claim wasn’t true or historical. They just made it up.
Agreed. I don’t know if the defamation claim has legal merit (probably depends on what country she sued Netflix in), but this is a rare case where I’m on the side of the defamation plaintiff. Even if they legally can do it, that doesn’t mean they should do it. What the writers did was grossly sexist and instead of Netflix doubling down, they should apologize and remove or correct the line. Until then they deserve to be called out and publicly shamed.
Five million might be a rounding error to them, but I suspect the plaintiff had to seek some kind of material damages to bring the suit. Hopefully their very poor choice to double down will hit them where it hurts a company like Netflix, in the reputation.
I can only say that if I were in her place, that line would seriously bother me as well.
What if Netflix made the edit over the top “worse” than the original objectionable content?
(Think a cut scene sloppily reenacted as a redneck cosplay, with Borat as the director.)
I’ve not seen the show, but I suspect they’re going for serious drama, not obvious satire like Sacha Baron Cohen who, while not my cup of tea, is satirizing thin-skinned assholes, not opportunistically throwing the very people who arguably inspired a critically and financially successful series under the bus for “dramatic” tension.
The problem is that what they did, while perhaps legally protected, is grossly sexist against a real-life trailblazer. All they have to do to not be smarmy pricks is change the name or remove the line, and preferably acknowledge it was in extremely poor taste.
Also perhaps worth pointing out that the show’s writer and creator is a man, Scott Frank. It wouldn’t be okay anyway, but Netflix defending a man being sexist is especially probelmatic.
I cannot find where I was reading it yesterday but there was an implication that the line was changed from whatever novel the series is based on.
Plus, as a “defamatory” statement, what is the damage? The script basically is implying she is “not great” as a chess player. Different, say, from calling her a murderer.
Ethically, obviously it’s a senseless self-own by Netflix, but I’m curious about the narrow legal issue here.
Reminds me of another of Scarlett Johanssen’s characters – Black Widow – who was a deadly assassin, but had never faced men.
Netflix failed to remember the old maxim:
You fuck with a grandmaster, you’re gonna get pwned.
Does anyone know if this plot point is in the show’s source material?
Apparently not. The series is based on a novel by Walter Tevis and according to USA today:
The mildly embarrassing thing is I think I have a copy of the book I haven’t gotten around to reading yet.
No it isn’t! Hollywood and TV writers have this enormous problem with setting events in reality with real people and real events in real history and then farting all over it with inventions and untruths. You can’t defend that claiming it was all fantasy and nobody takes that disclaimer about all characters being fictitious serious!
The name, the event, the place, the context… all real apart from this stupid lie. Why?
Uh, no. It’s based on a novel. Beth Harmon wasn’t a real person.
The lawsuit may also be seeking a correction statement from Netflix, which has a lot of value to her and to history.
The Netflix series is going to be on the internet forever, but this lawsuit will be forgotten when it’s over. The lie will live forever, unless maybe a lawsuit can result in corrective text added to the end of that episode, or at least a statement in print that will show up in google results for anyone looking for information around this.
I think the eternal nature of internet content doesn’t get enough attention in cases like this. It’s so much more than “oh Netflix said a wrong thing once, no big deal”. It’s “Netflix created a lie that is permanent and that will forever fill peoples’ heads with misinformation about a critical moment in the history of the first female grandmaster”
It’s also perhaps worth pointing out that although professional chess players have praised the accuracy of chess, multiple women professional chess players have noted that the show tones down the still-prevalent-today sexism of the real chess world.
You put it much better than I did. That’s really the crux of what I think. The money suit thing is the way capitalist law works, if you want to get something changed you need to go for money.
Which I’m also pretty cool about her getting because why not?
It also raises awareness of the lie which hopefully puts more public pressure on Netflix than merely calling them out would because, for better or worse, money talks.
