No, not all right. It’s wrong. But this is Hollywood. All that matters is whether the movie makes money. Daryl was a villain in the “Kill Bill” movies, so apparently making her the fly in John-John’s metaphorical romantic soup was a natural.
“Storytelling requires tension. It often requires an obstacle. But a real, living person is not a narrative device,” writes the actress, channeling Kant. The trouble is that Hollywood has been using real people as narrative devices for about a century. I don’t recall Hannah objecting to her industry’s habits when she was a star and might have had some influence. “Isn’t it textbook misogyny to tear down one woman in order to build up another?” she laments now.
It’s art, kid. In fact, it’s your art. Suck it up.
Hannah begins by saying that JFK Jr.’s celebrity mother, Jackie Onassis, once told her that although tabloids, magazines and newspapers “often sold ridiculous lies, they were nothing more than bird cage liner by the next day.” But in the digital age, Hannah says now, “stories do not disappear, yesterday’s news isn’t tossed out with the morning paper, and lies live online forever. They are archived, streamed, clipped, memed and resurfaced endlessly. A dramatized portrayal can become, for millions of viewers, the definitive version of a real person’s life.”
If you think that’s bad, Daryl, just wait until you’re dead. Look what they did to Chester A. Arthur.
Somebody should have told Hannah about the Streisand Effect, where a celebrity complaining about a smear just makes more people aware of it. My sock drawer couldn’t possible be well-organized enough to take me away from it to watch a show about JFK Jr., who when he was alive struck me as yet another President’s kid whose life consisted of futilely trying to exploit his fame. If possible, I care even less about Daryl Hannah than I do about John-John. Hollywood, meanwhile, is a lost cause in the ethics wars.
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.