Despite ‘Serious Questions’ Judge to Let ‘Amistad’ Open

Steven Spielberg’s “Amistad” will premiere as planned Wednesday, after a federal judge denied an author’s request to stop the release of the movie that she claims steals from her historical novel on the 1839 slave ship revolt.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said that author Barbara Chase-Riboud “has raised serious questions going to the merits of her copyright infringement claim.” But for the most part, the judge sided issue by issue with DreamWorks, saying the novelist has failed to establish “a probability of success” that she’ll eventually prove her case.

It was a victory of sorts for Spielberg and DreamWorks, his fledgling movie studio, which is hoping that the film--which cost $75 million to make and market--reaps numerous Oscar nominations early next year.

But at what price?

The ruling by Collins came Monday after lawyers representing Chase-Riboud spent two hours in forced talks discussing a possible settlement with attorneys for DreamWorks, including a possible financial settlement of $500,000 and a line in the movie’s credits suggesting that people read her 1989 book, “Echo of Lions.” Chase-Riboud and her lawyers, who have been asking for $2 million and a screen credit acknowledging her book as a source, rejected the settlement.

Despite Monday’s victory, some in Hollywood believe the movie is tainted by the specter of plagiarism, a stain that could hurt DreamWorks’ reputation in the creative community and diminish “Amistad’s” chances at Oscar time. One Academy member and self-proclaimed Spielberg fan said, “I definitely think this has hurt the integrity of the film, and we take that into consideration when we vote on a best picture.”

DreamWorks’ executives think that’s absurd.

“Academy members will judge the quality of the movie and the performances,” says Terry Press, a top DreamWorks manager. “If anything, Steven’s integrity as a filmmaker is even further enhanced by not bowing to extortion demands. However, perhaps they [academy members] might consider a special acting category for Ms. Chase-Riboud’s attorneys, because they gave the best performance of the year.”

Spielberg himself is said to be bristling at the media attention Chase-Riboud’s suit has brought him, DreamWorks and the movie, which he describes as “perhaps the most important of my career.” Spielberg, Hollywood’s top director, is especially wounded that his integrity is being called into question.

Ever since the author filed her $10-million claim in mid-October, alleging that DreamWorks plagiarized portions of her novel, Spielberg and his movie about the atrocities of slavery have been under intense scrutiny. Time magazine went so far as to headline a story, “Steven Stealberg?”

Each side accused the other of spinning its respective positions in the media.

“We wouldn’t stoop to their level of media mongering,” Press said Monday, to which Chase-Riboud’s attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, responded: “They’ve had their publicist and lawyers working overtime trying to spin this case. Any negative publicity they’ve received is a self-inflicted wound.”

O’Donnell says DreamWorks has itself to thank for making his client a “folk hero” who is being pursued for interviews by every major media outlet around the world. Chase-Riboud is scheduled to appear today on all three national morning talk shows to discuss the suit.

In recent weeks the lawsuit, as much as the movie, has been getting extraordinary attention, as evidenced by the overflowing federal courtroom Monday and the half-hour news conferences after the ruling.

“You can’t stop the rain. You can’t stop this story,” gushed TV actress and “Amistad” producer Debbie Allen, who added, “Honey, we are going to have a fantastic opening.” Allen is the person credited with persuading Spielberg to make a film about the Amistad incident.

Chase-Riboud and her lawyers characterized her case as one small author fighting the “DreamWorks juggernaut” made up of powerful Hollywood players. “This is a company town,” said O’Donnell, noting that studios usually win these kinds of fights.

Both Allen and Chase-Riboud compared their personal struggles with those of Cinque, the leader of the “Amistad” slave uprising, and his battle for his freedom. Allen said her struggle has been to get the movie to the screen, and Chase-Riboud said her struggle has been getting credit for raising public consciousness about slavery.

After the court ruling Monday, Fields declared victory, saying Spielberg has been vindicated. He vowed to soon ask the court to throw out the case.

O’Donnell said he found hope in Collins’ finding that Chase-Riboud has “raised serious questions” this early in the case before any discovery or depositions have been taken. He also set his sights on “Amistad” screenwriter David Franzoni, whom O’Donnell called a “rank plagiarist.” Fields called that allegation “garbage.”

After Monday’s hearing, O’Donnell told The Times that he is “seriously considering adding David Franzoni as a defendant in the case.” Documents made public last week disclosed apparent contradictions in testimony the screenwriter gave the Writers Guild of America West in connection with a credit arbitration over “Amistad.”

A Nov. 7 WGA document states that Franzoni testified that his involvement in the DreamWorks project began at a pitch meeting in 1995 at which he said he had read two books on the subject, one of them being “Echo of Lions.”

When DreamWorks and Franzoni’s attorney protested to the guild that it was mistaken, the Guild revised its finding, noting, “The special committee was left with the impression that Mr. Franzoni had read this book. Mr. Franzoni never said at the hearing that he had read ‘Echo of Lions.’ ”

Popular wisdom suggests this case will be settled before ever going to trial, and some question why Spielberg has been dragging his feet. One source suggests that Spielberg himself has been the stumbling block, leaning heavily on Fields to take a hard line, while his DreamWorks’ partner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, has been urging a settlement.