M.Night Shyamalan is on trial for alleged copyright infringement.
THE Sixth sense The filmmaker is facing a lawsuit from Italian director Francesca Gregorini, who claims Shyamalan’s Apple TV+ show Servant stole substantially similar concepts from his 2013 film The truth about Emmanuel. Gregorini’s initial complaint was filed in January 2020, and trial of the case began Tuesday in federal court in Riverside, California.
Representatives for Shyamalan, Apple and the defendants’ legal team did not immediately respond. Weekly Entertainment» requests for feedback.
Gregorini’s complaint, which EW reviewed, says Shyamalan ‘implausibly’ claims he never saw him Emmanuel. Gregorini seeks $81 million to ServantThe creators of , including Apple and Shyamalan, who were in the courtroom for opening arguments.
However, most of Tuesday’s opening arguments focused not on Shyamalan — who served as showrunner, executive producer and occasional director on the four-season series — but on ServantThe creator of, Tony Basgallop, who is also accused in this case.
Apple TV+
In an opening statement, Gregorini’s lawyer, Patrick Arenz, observed that both The truth about Emmanuel And Servant focuses on “a delusional mother who takes care of a lifelike doll” and befriends a nanny who “pleases her” by caring for the doll as if it were a real child , according to a court transcript reviewed by EW.
“It’s a simple case. Francesca Gregorini created original and new expressions in her film Emmanuel“, Arenz said. “The film was available to the defendants and the defendants copied key elements of these expressions into their television show. Servant. Make no mistake, there would be no Servant without Emmanuel. However, the decision of the accused to copy elements of Emmanuel was as lucrative as it was intentional. They generated over $300 million from this TV series. »
Servant was born from ideas Basgallop had conceived for a previous iteration of the supernatural project titled Practically perfectand Arenz argued that the screenwriter had edited his work to add “a doll and a crazy mother” in 2016, when he presented the concept to Shyamalan – three years later Emmanuel premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Arenz claimed that Shyamalan and his colleagues “love the reborn doll” upon hearing Basgallop’s speech. “It’s so compelling, fresh, edgy. It’s definitely the big idea of the show. They also love the great concept between the mother character and the nanny character.”
Arenz also argued that Emmanuel is “based on Ms. Gregorini’s life experiences, as it was about her efforts to protect her mother while she suffered from addiction and maintained the illusion that all was well at home.”
Tribeca Films
Register for Weekly Entertainmentthe free daily newsletter to get the latest TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars and much more.
In the defense’s opening statement, attorney Brittany Amadi Also argued that the creative work in question was personal to his client.
“This is the result of 15 years of work by Tony Basgallop to develop a compelling story based on his own real-life experiences,” said Amadi. “Now when he had the idea of Servant by November 2005, he had two young children, ages 1 and 3, and he and his wife had hired an 18-year-old nanny to care for them. And that’s where his concept was born. He thought about “What if you welcomed a nanny into your home and strange and sinister things started happening?” » The idea of an anti-Mary Poppins“.
Amadi attempted to characterize Arenz’s opening statement as “slander,” arguing instead: “There was no copying in this case.” None. You won’t see a shred of evidence that anyone is involved in this. Servant said, ‘Hey, The truth about Emmanuel This looks like a great film. Let’s do Servant more like Emmanuel.'”
To support his argument, Amadi presented an exhibition of EmmanuelShyamalan’s box office data, which showed the film grossed a total of $226 at its best-selling theater in Los Angeles during its theatrical run, and only $9 in Shyamalan’s hometown of Philadelphia . “If a ticket costs $10,” the lawyer said, “that means about 22 people saw his movie at the best-selling theater (in Los Angeles). Ask yourself if it’s reasonable to assume that one of these 22 people was some random person from the creators of. Servant?”
Amadi also argued that “there are far more differences than similarities” between the two projects, mainly due to their different genres: “Supernatural thriller versus emotional drama. The two different genres are very, very different.”
The defense also pointed out that the most similar element, the reborn dollis not an original idea exclusive to Emmanuel. “(Gregorini) did not invent the concept of a reborn doll,” Amadi said. “Reborn dolls existed in the world before and after his movie. They are a real thing. And anyone can draw inspiration from facts that exist in the real world when they create movies, when they create shows There’s nothing wrong with that.”
Amadi pointed out that other notable entertainments like The boy, The leftoversAnd High maintenance used similar concepts.
After the opening statements were completed, the court reviewed the entirety of the The truth about Emmanuel for the jury, followed by the first three episodes of Servantwhich are the only ones that the plaintiff claims to have violated her copyright.
At the end of the trial, the jury will review the evidence and decide whether Servant is substantially similar to The truth about Emmanueland that decision will determine whether Gregorini gets any of the damages she seeks.