Dazed and Confused: The Litigation Years
Now Playing: A Silly Controversy
I don't usually use this blog to comment on what's going on in the news, not even when it's movie-related. But I couldn't not say anything about this:

Click here for the AP story

DAZED AND CONFUSED is a film I love, one I catch every time it plays on a big screen near me. And I consider Richard Linklater to be one of the good guys and leading lights in American cinema today. But the eye-rolling that resulted from this story has less to do with my esteem for film and filmmaker than with the fact that it all seems so petty to me.

A few weeks ago, I received a reader's question asking me what movie's cast of characters I'd take to a deserted island, and the first answer that came to mind was DAZED AND CONFUSED. With the possible exception of O'Banion (Ben Affleck), I believe Linklater respects his characters and gives them room to breathe here, and the three plaintiffs in the suit (Slater, Floyd, and Wooderson) are three of the most vivid characters in the film. Yet supposedly these three real-life guys regard the characterizations as "negative." OK, so Slater smokes weed and Wooderson chases underage girls in the movie. But between Slater's I'm-OK-you're-OK acceptance of everyone around him, Floyd's balking at a largely ceremonial zero-tolerance pledge, and Wooderson's credo of "l-i-v-i-n: Livin'," these guys are the film's most eloquent spokespeople for Linklater's worldview.

Part of the problem with the circumstances surrounding the suit is the film's image among those who haven't seen it- namely, as a film glorifying drugs, alcohol, and partying. While this image has been successful in making it a cult classic among those who are inclined to such activities, this sells the film short, and all but the staunchest and most humorless moralist who watches the film would be hard-pressed to label Slater, Pink and Wooderson as bad guys. I'm not sure whether the film has truly "made their lives miserable and caused their neighbors to think poorly of them," but the fact that they've filed the suit in New Mexico which, according to the story, "has a longer statute of limitations than other states for claims of defamation and false light," doesn't speak well for the legitimacy of their claims.

Now, I'm no law-talkin' guy (for that, you'd be advised to visit this dude). I know that if the film was an outright satire, along the lines of the Larry Flynt case, this wouldn't stand up in court, but I'm not sure what to make of the suit's chances as it currently stands. All I know is that I don't really like the suit very much, and I hope that I've at least manage to convey some of the reasons why. What does everyone else think?