Why no Molly Brown in the 1953 movie"Titanic"?
new_...@email.msn.com
inaccuracies, why is the Molly Brown character in that movie given another
name? Was there some fear of litigation if her real name was used?
James Jackson
new_...@email.msn.com
Steven Jones wrote in message <386674DB...@tsn.cc>...
>Molly Brown is in that movie. In one scene, after the collision, Molly
>Brown says "Everyone knows this tin tub is unsinkable."
>
I'm not sure what movie you're referring to. In the 1953 movie starring
Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck, there is a Molly Brown type character
(played by Thelma Ritter) but her name is Maude Young, benefactor of Montana
lead mine. It is obvious that she is portraying Molly Brown yet for some
reason they decided not to call her by that name. Other passengers in the
movie were referred to by real passenger's names (such as the Strausses).
Therefore, I am curious as to why the filmmakers chose not to use Molly
Brown's name in this movie.
James Jackson
Steven Jones
Alicefan1
>Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck, there is a Molly Brown type character
>(played by Thelma Ritter) but her name is Maude Young, benefactor of Montana
>lead mine. It is obvious that she is portraying Molly Brown yet for some
>reason they decided not to call her by that name. Other passengers in the
>movie were referred to by real passenger's names (such as the Strausses).
>Therefore, I am curious as to why the filmmakers chose not to use Molly
>Brown's name in this movie.
>
> James Jackson
>
>
Just a guess here, but perhaps Molly's heirs were tired of the Titanic
connection to her name and refused to let the producers use it in the film?
Alice
Nick Cooper
>>I'm not sure what movie you're referring to. In the 1953 movie starring
>>Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck, there is a Molly Brown type character
>>(played by Thelma Ritter) but her name is Maude Young, benefactor of Montana
>>lead mine. It is obvious that she is portraying Molly Brown yet for some
>>reason they decided not to call her by that name. Other passengers in the
>>movie were referred to by real passenger's names (such as the Strausses).
>>Therefore, I am curious as to why the filmmakers chose not to use Molly
>>Brown's name in this movie.
>
>Just a guess here, but perhaps Molly's heirs were tired of the Titanic
>connection to her name and refused to let the producers use it in the film?
That's not normally something anyone can demand, unless the portrayal
is defamatory.
--
Nick Cooper
625-Online - classic British television:
http://625.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme & Flanders:
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.cooper/personal
Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.cooper/personal/moggies/simon/simon.htm
Bruce D. Winningham
wrote:
>That's not normally something anyone can demand, unless the portrayal
>is defamatory.
Are you sure about that? I thought the movie producers were
"encouraged" to get the family's permission if the character was once
an actual living person? Who was Molly Brown anyway?
Bruce Winningham
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
> Are you sure about that? I thought the movie producers were
> "encouraged" to get the family's permission if the character was once
> an actual living person?
There's an old legal maxim -- "you can't slander a dead man." Traditionally,
it has been very difficult for the heirs of deceased persons to collect
damages for negative portrayals (in print or other media) of their departed
loved ones. Even with a living person, the standard of evidence to be met
by the plaintiff for collecting for libel or slander is fairly high, as it
should be. Even a *very* negative portrayal, if it can be supported solid
evidence, is fairly immune. To quote another legal maxim, "the truth is an
absolute defense against libel."
That is changing gradually, and the courts have increasingly allowed family
members to retain some control over the likeness and image of deceased
persons, particularly if they were famous and their image is a
revenue-producing one. IIRC, the court decisions restricting the commercial
use of likenesses of Elvis Presley were landmark cases in this subject, and
have been followed up by legal actions on behalf of the estates of Buddy
Holly and Fred Astaire. None of these more recent cases, of course, had any
bearing at all on the 1953 film.
I'm sure that filmmakers are sometimes encouraged to get permission from
families of persons they intend to portray in a movie. But I'm sure there's
no legal requirement to do so, and I can imagine many cases where a filmmaker
would specifically want to *avoid* seeking a family's permission -- if you
seek permission or authorization, the presumption is that you will follow (or
at least consider) the family's wishes, and (from the director/
screenwritier's POV) that can easily get in the way of good filmmaking.
Remember that the descendants of a historical figure will be primarily
intereted in showing their ancestor in the best possible light, and may have
little or no knowledge of the actual, historical evidence.
As for why the Molly/Maggie Brown character was not called by her real name
in the 1953 film, I don't know. It may well have something to do with the
name being used in some other production or work ("The Unsinkable Molly
Brown" didn't debut until 1960), but I doubt it's because the studio was
afraid of legal action from any of her heirs.
---------> AH
______________________________________________
What were their names, tell me,
What were their names?
Did you have a friend
On the good Reuben James?