Why Do Films End With A ‘This is a Work of Fiction’ Disclaimer?

3minute
read

November 16, 2016

by Mitch Ziems

“This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.”

If you’ve ever sat through the credits of a film and read this disclaimer, you’ve probably laughed and thought “oh, really? Star Wars didn’t really happen in a galaxy far, far away?”

Sure, it seems ludicrous to think movies not claiming to be factual would even have to clarify that their stories are mere fantasy, but there’s actually a fascinating reason why those two lines have become an industry standard, and it comes back to one of the most mystical figures of the early 20th century.

Grigori Rasputin was an infamous adviser and friend to the Russian Tsar Nicholas II. A controversial and imposing figurehead on the country’s political stage whose religious views framed his reputation as a hedonist set on destroying the royal family.

After an unsuccessful assassination attempt in 1914, Rasputin was finally killed in 1916, but only after being poisoned, beaten, shot, stabbed, and drowned in the Neva River (though legend states he survived even the latter, somehow holding his breath while submerged underwater for three days).

The assassins – lead by Prince Felix Yusupov – were banished for their actions.

16 years later, producers at Hollywood’s MGM created Rasputin and the Empress, a film that dealt with the healer’s introduction to the Tsar and his family, and the murder that eventually claimed his life.

In the movie, Rasputin is slain by a character named Prince Paul Chegodieff, but even those who had only cursory knowledge of the historical event understood that Chegodieff was Yusupov in every way but name.

When word reached a destitute Yusupov, now barely scraping by in Paris, he declared the film defamatory. Not towards him though – it’s a bit difficult to claim your reputation is on the line when you’ve publicly declared yourself an assassin, and written a memoir about the event.

No; Yusupov argued that the film was defamatory towards his wife, Irina.

In the film, the character who represents Irina, Princess Natasha, is raped by Rasputin and then dismissed by her husband. However, the two had never met, but when one of the film’s researchers made note of this, she was fired. After all, the rape scene served a dramatic purpose, furthering the portrayal of Rasputin as a perverted monster, and so the facts didn’t matter.

Besides, the film opened with a disclaimer stating “This concerns the destruction of an empire … A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence”. Surely that covered them legally?

A British court felt otherwise, and awarded Irina £25,000 (around $1 million USD today) for what was deemed invasion of privacy.

The disclaimer had done more harm than good, primarily because MGM refused to admit that by pointing out some of the characters were still alive, they were only further highlighting the fact that those characters were version of Felix and Irina Yusupov.

As the case unfolded, it was stated that MGM would have been better in stating the exact opposite: that it was entirely a work of fiction. And so was set a bizarre precedent, one by which the likes of Toy Story remind audiences that the events in the movie are fabricated, while those based on historical events like The Social Network or Dog Day Afternoon claim they are entirely fictional in case someone portrayed in the film takes umbrage.

Today, some films can say they were partially inspired by true events, but many still won’t take the risk.

For more stories on how Hollywood handles depictions of real life subjects, check out Truth and Lives On Film by John T. Aquino.

too many entries