I wrote a post a few days ago detailing how I would be going to Los Angeles in the final days of the Olivia de Havilland vs. FX trial, and I have been paying close attention to the case ever since. An update to the case has recently been posted to the Los Angeles Superior Court website–FX’s motion to strike was denied by Judge Holly Kendig on September 30, but on October 10, FX filed an appeal.
The trial is still scheduled to start on November 27 as of right now, but I wanted to share the details of the pending appeal with you readers, and have a discussion about its merits.
FX asked for a motion to strike based on the fact that the case was based on protected rights. Kendig agreed, but said that de Havilland’s side could be successful in court, so she let it stand. In a declaration by James Berkley, FX’s senior research analyst for the case, FX disagrees. Berkley takes on de Havilland’s assertions that she “refused to use what she knew about the private or public lives of other actors (which was a considerable amount) to promote her own press attention and celebrity status” but “Feud creates the public impression that she was a hypocrite, selling gossip in order to promote herself at the Academy Awards.”
In his declaration, Berkley says that he has “uncovered numerous examples of [de Havilland] giving interviews in print or in video, appearing on television, and otherwise publicly discussing her life, her film career, the role of women in Hollywood, and her friendships with other Hollywood celebrities, including but not limited to her friendship with her fellow actress, Bette Davis.”
He names several online videos as examples, which I provide below. Now, readers, discussion time. Do you think these videos are examples of de Havilland “selling gossip,” or “promoting her own press attention or celebrity status?” Do the videos invalidate de Havilland’s statement, and does the appeal have merit?
Please leave comments with your thoughts, and let’s talk about this!