‘Lambs’ Stew : Battle Over ‘Silence’ Sequel May Change Hollywood Deal Making

It may not equal the tale of a Chianti-sipping, cannibalistic killer named Hannibal Lecter.

But it has everything to do with who will control the sequel to “The Silence of the Lambs”--the Oscar-winning film that featured him. Indeed, the struggle for distribution rights to the “Silence” follow-up befits a script about Hollywood:

The battle pits producer Dino De Laurentiis, who owns rights to the sequel, against the chairman of Universal Pictures, Thomas Pollock, who happens to be De Laurentiis’ former lawyer. Not surprisingly, the two have conflicting memories of who promised what to whom.

De Laurentiis maintains that the studio tried to “blackmail” him into surrendering rights to the “Silence” sequel by withholding payment for another project. Universal bases its claim to the sequel on a purported oral agreement between Pollock and De Laurentiis.

Now De Laurentiis and Universal are suing each other--and transcripts of sworn testimony obtained by The Times provide a rare look at Hollywood’s inner workings.

“Dino and I have a basic disagreement on people’s obligations to perform their contracts,” Pollock testified in a deposition. “Dino’s idea is, I’d give him more (money for film deals), give him more, give him more--and he doesn’t have to live up to anything. And that just really annoys me. It’s--it is chutzpah.”

De Laurentiis, a native of Italy who has ridden a roller coaster of success and controversy in Hollywood, countered under oath that Pollock had engaged in “blackmail,” adding:

“Every time I ask Tom Pollock for something, Tom Pollock come to me and say, ‘Dino, give me “Silence of the Lambs.” ’ I said, ‘Tom, I sell you “Silence of the Lambs” only when I am ready.’ . . . And Tom Pollock said to me, ‘Dino, let’s be honest between us: I no like you. You no like me.’ ”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles Lee last week refused to dismiss any part of the case; it could go to trial as early as next fall. Already, the fight figures to influence the art of the Hollywood deal.

“One way or the other,” said Ronald J. Silverman, a Beverly Hills entertainment lawyer who is not involved in the case, “it’s going to create a significant impetus for executives and creative producers to reduce deals to writing--if those deals exist.”

The fact that the fight centers on a sequel to a film that grossed $245 million worldwide and swept the most distinguished categories of this year’s Academy Awards elevates the stakes.

Michael Medavoy, head of rival TriStar Pictures, was not alone in saying that the sequel in progress by author Thomas Harris will be coveted by every major studio in Hollywood.

“It’s quite anticipated,” said Medavoy, who approved production of Harris’ “The Silence of the Lambs” while an executive at Orion Pictures. Orion last December filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Said Pierce O’Donnell, the attorney who represents De Laurentiis: “Tens of millions of dollars are at stake.”

O’Donnell mocked the notion that Pollock--who before coming to Universal was one of the top lawyers specializing in entertainment--could claim a deal with De Laurentiis without having a written record of their supposed oral contract.

“In our view, this is a figment of Tom Pollock’s fertile imagination,” O’Donnell said. “I’ve heard of deals being done on the backs of cocktail napkins at the Polo Lounge. Here we don’t even have the cocktail napkins. . . . In Hollywood, they write it down.”

Or do they?

Bertram Fields, the Century City entertainment lawyer who is representing Universal, said oral agreements are commonplace.

“We rely on handshake deals all the time,” Fields said in an interview. “If the motion picture business can no longer rely on someone’s word, then we’re in very bad shape. . . . We’re very anxious to get to trial and establish ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ contract.”

Not in dispute is that Pollock and De Laurentiis have dealt with each other since the early to mid-1980s--when they were lawyer and client. De Laurentiis has also sold films over the years to Los Angeles-based Universal, before and after Pollock was hired in 1986 to run the studio, now owned by Japan’s Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Pollock testified that “it was sometime in January of 1991” that he broached the idea to De Laurentiis of making a deal on the “Silence” sequel.

“I told him I heard that ‘Silence of the Lambs’ was really terrific, and that since we were doing two terrific movies together (‘Kuffs’ and the still-unreleased ‘Army of Darkness’), would he like to do (the) sequel to ‘Silence of the Lambs’ with me. And he said, ‘Absolutely, Tom. That would be terrific.’ . . . I believe that we made an agreement at that time.”

According to Pollock, he and De Laurentiis agreed to these terms:

Universal would pay 50% of the cost of acquiring Harris’ sequel novel; Universal and De Laurentiis would split evenly the costs of producing a movie based on that book; in return, Universal would gain rights to distribute the film in the United States and De Laurentiis would retain the foreign distribution rights.

But during the weeks that followed, Pollock said De Laurentiis balked at a written contract.

“He wanted it to be a handshake agreement between us and (said) that I should trust him as a friend and producer, that he would live up to his word, that I shouldn’t ask for it in writing,” Pollock testified. “I said, ‘Dino, come on. We have to get protected. Let’s put it in writing.’ ”

Finally, in May, 1991, Pollock invited De Laurentiis and a handful of their aides to a meeting at his office “to clear the air.” According to Pollock’s deposition, De Laurentiis wanted more money--$200,000 for “Kuffs,” $350,000 for “Army of Darkness.” Pollock wanted affirmation that he had a deal for the “Silence” sequel.

“I suggested to Dino that it would be a good idea for our future relationship if we can get everything done and see if we could just get together and resolve it all,” Pollock testified.

Pollock said he deferred deciding whether to pay the extra money for “Kuffs.” However, Pollock later agreed to pay the added $350,000 for “Army of Darkness”--believing, he testified, that De Laurentiis had confirmed their “Silence” deal.

“When we left that meeting and Dino and I gave each other passionate hugs, we agreed in front of everybody that all problems were now resolved,” Pollock testified.

But within months, hugs turned to taunts.

Universal said its obligation to accept and pay for “Army of Darkness” depended on De Laurentiis delivering the film by March 27, 1992. De Laurentiis--with a related $13-million bank loan coming due--said the film could not be properly edited and delivered until late May.

De Laurentiis recounted a pointed phone conversation early this year with Pollock: “He said to me, ‘Give me “Silence of the Lambs,” and I give you freedom to deliver picture (“Army of Darkness”) when you want.’ ‘Tom, this is blackmail. Why you put me against wall this way?’ ”

In February, De Laurentiis filed suit, seeking the freedom to sell “Army” to another studio. Universal countersued in April, asserting its rights to distribute the “Silence” sequel and seeking $25 million in damages. Should the dispute make it to trial, Fields said, it will essentially be “one fellow’s word against the other.”

That credibility test would pit Pollock, 49, the rumpled, Ivy League-trained lawyer turned studio mogul, against the diminutive, bluntly spoken De Laurentiis, 72, who has gained a mixed reputation during a career spanning 50 years.

De Laurentiis first earned fame in the 1950s as a producer of two foreign-language films that won Oscars. In the United States, his films have included “Serpico,” “Three Days of the Condor” and “Ragtime.”

But he may be best remembered for the impact he has had on the purely financial side of filmmaking.

De Laurentiis pioneered the widely emulated practice of pre-selling a movie’s distribution rights in foreign markets. In some instances, this provides filmmakers with a stream of cash a year or more before a picture is completed.

A less flattering De Laurentiis legacy is the performance of De Laurentiis Entertainment Group Inc. In 1986, the company went public with an offering of stock. One year later, the Securities and Exchange Commission found that the firm’s accounting practices violated federal law. Without admitting guilt, De Laurentiis Entertainment agreed to settle the case by changing the practices.

In August, 1988--a few months after De Laurentiis resigned as chairman and just two years after the venture had reaped $90 million from stock and bond investors--the company crashed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. De Laurentiis has attributed the bankruptcy to a top executive he installed.

In its countersuit, Universal refers to De Laurentiis’ past, alleging that he “for many years . . . has engaged in a pattern and practice of finding spurious legal and factual arguments to support a refusal to perform his contractual obligations.”

But Pollock, asked at his deposition for “personal knowledge” to support that description of his former law client, declined to elaborate.

“I am bound by my attorney-client privilege to the gentleman who is currently suing Universal Pictures,” Pollock said, adding that when he represented De Laurentiis, “I always conducted myself within the canons of ethics.”

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS: FROM CANNIBALISM TO COURTROOM

Excerpts of court depositions from lawsuits between producer Dino De Laurentiis and Universal Pictures and its chairman, Thomas Pollock over the rights to the sequel of “The Silence of the Lambs.”

“Dino’s idea is, I’d give him more (money for film deals), give him more, give him more--and he doesn’t have to live up to anything. And that just really annoys me. It’s--it is chutzpah.”--Thomas Pollock

“Tom Pollock said to me, ‘Dino, let’s be honest between us: I no like you. You no like me.’ “--Dino De Laurentiis

“He wanted it to be a handshake agreement . . . I should trust him as a friend and producer . . . I shouldn’t ask for it in writing. I said, ‘Dino, come on. We have to get protected. Let’s put it in writing.’ “--Thomas Pollock

“He said to me, ‘Give me ‘Silence of the Lambs’ and I give you freedom to deliver picture (Army of Darkness) when you want.’ ‘Tom, this is blackmail. Why you put me against wall this way?’ “--Dino De Laurentiis