« Tale of two teachers : to be and have more. (3/10) | HomePage | Tale of two teachers : set up to lose. (5/10) »
Mar 09, 2009
Tale of two teachers : dura lex sed lex? (4/10)
Georges Lopez hired a lawyer. The lawyer started two lawsuits.
One could have passed for a tongue in cheek display of wry humour, but was rather meant as a warm up for the real thing.
Georges Lopez was paid to promote the film. When he started to voice his grievances against them, the film producers did not condone this new bold communications strategy, despite the major free copy it generated about the film. They decided against compensating somebody for accusing them of being crooks.
The first Georges Lopez vs. « Etre et avoir » case was brought before « tribunal des prudhommes », the court in charge of labour relations conflicts. It was judged in Montpellier, a city of Southern France, along the Mediterranean sea, on the way to Spain : a hint that the newly retired Georges Lopez had been quick to leave the demanding climate of Puy-de-Dôme for warmer shores and maybe return to his own Catalan roots.
Georges Lopez’s lawyer sued the film producers for wrongful termination of his client’s employment contract and asked for the payment of unpaid wages, related leave, plus a variety of indemnities and damages.
Georges Lopez lost. His lawyer appealed. Georges Lopez lost again, or earned only a few laughs, at his expense
The other Georges Lopez vs. « Etre et avoir » case cut to the heart of the matter. It claimed Georges Lopez was the film co-author : Nicolas Philibert had recorded classes, which Georges Lopez had created and were therefore his intellectual property ; « Etre et avoir » exploited them without their author’s consent and therefore infringed upon his rights. In addition, Georges Lopez was an actor in the film and, as such, entitled to compensation.
Georges Lopez lost again, on both counts.
Granting Georges Lopez’s classes the status of intellectual property would have opened a gigantic can of worms. Not for filmmakers, for French Education Nationale, which might have been forced to open one more round of negotiations with over one million authors, already prompt at demonstrating and going on strike to defend or improve their wages, pension plans or working conditions.
The recurring psychodramas among SAG, WGA, DGA and the film and TV producers’ associations would have looked by comparison like small bad-tempered potatoes.
Georges Lopez lost his case, but the court did not expressly rule out that his classes could constitute intellectual property. The court only said the parts of the classes used in the film did not. Could have King Solomon put it any better and more fuzzily ?
Georges Lopez’s claim to compensation as an actor appeared both stronger and perverse.
Stronger, because every schoolteacher -even more than a waiter- is an actor, or at least a performer : he has a role, a programme to play, a stage, an audience of captive subscribers, forbidden to miss a performance and promised trouble if they disturb any.
Perverse because, if Georges Lopez was an actor, « Etre et avoir » was no longer a documentary film, but a work of fiction. The Georges Lopez on screen was no longer the real Georges Lopez, but Georges Lopez acting like the schoolteacher all the French would have loved to have.
And this Georges Lopez on screen had no more to do with the real life Georges Lopez than Obelix with Gérard Depardieu : the Georges Lopez vs. « Etre et avoir » lawsuits demonstrated the true Georges Lopez was a greedy opportunist, who only cared for himself and did not give a damn if the other actors, i.e. his own pupils, were compensated or not.
While Dr Lopez impersonated France’s favourite teacher on screen, off screen Mr. Georges sued : a sad but classical tale of selfish cynicism rather than split personality.
08:05 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this