Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: [Trovato-Lungo] Kubrick contro Punch

June 8 1999  LAW Times
Before  the release of the late Stanley Kubrick's last film, Rick Senat
sets the record  straight over the director's tussle with Punch magazine   
Kubrick's KO punch 
Much has been  written about Stanley Kubrick and his place in cinema
history. There is little I  can add. But I did have the privilege of
working closely with him for more than  two decades and, like many others,
admired and liked him very much. During his  extraordinary career, he
rarely gave interviews or commented on other people's  views and opinions.
That was his right. As with all of Stanley's friends,  colleagues and
confidants, my conversations with him should remain private, as  he would
have wished.
But there is one episode that took place before  Stanley's death that his
family and I feel should be made public. Had he lived  longer, these events
would have emerged anyway, so I do not feel I am betraying  a confidence.
  The story begins in August 1998 when Punch  published an article about
Kubrick in its "Lowdown" column. In the  main, the article did not differ
from many others published over the years by  journalists who felt at
liberty to take potshots, in print, at a man they knew  was unlikely to
reply. But this alleged that he was clinically insane. The words  used were
"we're hearing stories that suggest Kubrick is even more insane  than
psychiatrists have led us to believe..." Unfortunately for Punch,  English
law is designed to protect people from such unfunny and blatantly
defamatory statements. With Stanley, we consulted Keith Schilling, a libel
specialist; Stanley decided to sue Punch Ltd for libel. It in turn decided
to  defend the claim.    As any barrack-room lawyer knows, there are
limited defences to a libel action. One is "truth", but Punch could  not
begin to prove that Stanley was clinically insane, so instead filed a
defence claiming that he was autocratic, eccentric and difficult to work
with.  It based this defence on a hundred or so stories from a variety of
newspaper  articles and poorly researched books which fell a long way short
of a proper  defence.    Punch and its Editor at no time showed any
remorse. On the contrary, the magazine took to reproducing Stanley's
solicitor's  letters and seemed to be hell-bent on fighting the case in the
full glare of  publicity. James Steen, the Editor of Punch,was quoted as
saying that the  article was a "silly gossip story and if Kubrick wants to
push his way  through a mob of photographers every day on his way to court,
we'll see him  there".    None of the above would have been particularly
worthy of comment but for the fact that on March 4 this year Stanley
applied at  a High Court hearing for Punch's defence to be struck out. This
was on the basis  that it was without legal foundation.
The hearing was held in private, so  little from it is is likely to be made
public. The gist of Stanley's argument  was that Punch had published a
defamatory article which meant what it said:  namely, that he was
clinically insane, and that the magazine's defence was  hopeless and
irrelevant.
Mr Justice Popplewell, after a brief hearing, left  the publishers and
Editor of Punch in no doubt about his views, even though the  hearing was a
procedural one, not the actual trial on the merits. In short,  Punch's
defences of justification and fair comment were struck out. Costs were
awarded against Punch and Steen and an order made that they would have 21
days  to reconsider their position and to file an alternative defence.
In  practice, Punch had no alternative defence: the game was up and Kubrick
had won  his case. Punch and its solicitors seemed to have thought that
Stanley's  distaste for personal publicity would have convinced him to drop
the action once  they had set up a wafer-thin defence. In this they were
wrong. Under English  law, the death of a plaintiff in a libel action
brings an end to his case. Given  that one cannot libel the dead, Stanley's
lawsuit is now at an end.
In our  last conversation with Stanley, a colleague and I told him that
Punch's defence  had been shot down and that it was only a question of time
before the defendants  caved in. He was delighted, mentioning it to friends
and family. All he had  really wanted from Punch was reasonable: an apology
and payment of his costs.  Any damages would have gone to charity.
To this day, the journalists at  Punch have treated the whole affair as a
trifling matter driven by lawyers, but  never once apologised for grossly
offensive remarks. On the contrary, in the  first issue of Punch after
Stanley's death, it misleadingly suggested that it  had a defence which
would have been heard later this year, failing to mention  that its defence
had been struck out. This action was brought on behalf of those  who feel
that privacy and reputation are valuable. Stanley explained it
beautifully: "Rick, I have grandchildren." To them I say: whatever  Punch
may have written (and no doubt may write again), this is what happened. In
the matter of Stanley Kubrick v James Steen and Punch Ltd, Stanley Kubrick
won  and Punch lost.  
The author is senior vice-president in  charge of business affairs for
Warner Bros, Europe.
Alberto :-/
------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for something or someone to show you the way
--
Posted from 
mta4.iol.it
 [195.210.91.154]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.mailgate.org

On 10 Jun 1999 01:08:46 +0200, 
alberto...@iol.it
 (Alberto Farina)
wrote:
che brutta fine ha fatto Punch!
credevo che non esistesse piu'
N.