Poor Daryl.
Nobody apparently told her about the industry she worked in for all those years. In an angry op-ed in the New York Times (gift link), Hannah, once one of the late John F. Kennedy Jr.’s girlfriends, protests that the FX TV series “Love Story” about the romance between John-John and Carolyn Bessette exploits her while warping the truth and marring her reputation.
“The actions and behaviors attributed to me are untrue,” Hannah writes. “I have never used cocaine in my life or hosted cocaine-fueled parties. I have never pressured anyone into marriage. I have never desecrated any family heirloom or intruded upon anyone’s private memorial. I have never planted any story in the press. I never compared Jacqueline Onassis’ death to a dog’s.”
I believe her, maybe, but it doesn’t matter. Fictionalized versions of living people’s lives, when those people are celebrities, are immune from lawsuits unless they can be shown to have represented the falsehoods as true (by definition, a fictionalized series does not do that), and done so with malice. One of the show’s producers explained why Hannah’s character was cast as a villain: “Given how much we’re rooting for John and Carolyn, Daryl Hannah occupies a space where she’s an adversary to what you want narratively in the story.” Oh. Then its all right to show her doing and saying things she didn’t do or say.
Ethics Alarms 
It seems to me that any story that portrays real people is assumed to be a true representation of events. Otherwise the story cannot represent JFK Jr relationship with Carolyn.
Calling something fictionalized while suggesting this was a factual account is pure BS on the makers part unless they tell the audience upfront that the story they are about to see is absolute fiction for entertainment purposes only.
Assumed by whom, Chris? There are so many examples to the contrary, like the 1974 “Missiles of October,” which told the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis through Bobby Kennedy’s imaginary account whitewashed to make him and his brother look good. Or “JFK,” which made JFK assassination conspiracy nut Jim Garrison look like a hero–he even played a judge in the film while Kevin Costner played him. Hollywood has used that disclaimer about “any resemblance to individuals alive or dead” on movies for almost 100 years, even when the characters were named after real living people. Assumed by idiots? Absolutely.
And, of course, it doesn’t help that Hollywood has a blind spot when it comes to the Kennedys. They really bought into the Camelot narrative.
And still do.
Given that a substantial number of Americans are idiots and if you portray a real life individual as some reprobate in what could be inferred as biographical when it is false but done solely to create entertainment value then it smacks of liable irrespective of any disclaimer.
Because I am going only on what was in this post I am assuming Hannah JFK Jr and Carolyn were referenced by name in the movie. As such viewers could assume that this was in fact a true chronicle of events.
If not and the only basis of the film was something remotely similar to their relationship I can see your point.
Conversely, if my assumptions were correct then I can see her point too.
Perhaps the NYT, Huffington Post and the WAPO should include a disclaimer in their stories that the any similarity to actual events or persons living or dead are purely coincidental
If “All that matters[sic to Hollywood} is whether the movie makes money” then they have volated their own goal picking this subject matter. I would not pay a plug nickel to see this, would you?
No. JFK Jr. was the American version of Princess Diana, but even worthy of less attention. He couldn’t even parlay his nepo baby wealth and fame into as much of a career as sister Caroline. Then he got himself killed flying a private plane irresponsbly, thus putting him in the same embarrassing category as Thurman Munson and John Denver, both of who contributed more to society than John-John, who also killed Bessett with his recklessness.
You just reminded me, added to my list of movies not wrth a plug nickel is anything about Princess Diana, any member of the kennedy family, especaily the nere do well brother Teddy.
“Chappaquidick” is worth watching, as it is remarkably unsympathetic to Ted, and shows just how corrupt and ruthless Kennedy World was and probably still is.