I was suffering from a mild case of writer's block this weekend when a truly bizarre film−related news story fell into my lap. Sarah Deming, a Michigan resident, is filing a class−action lawsuit against FilmDistrict Distribution LLC for deceptively marketing the indie−action film "Drive" (2011), a fast−paced blockbuster featuring Ryan Gosling and lots of car chases. Deming is also suing the movie theater where she saw "Drive." The lawsuit specifically calls for "an end to misleading trailers" and claims the film's advertisements violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
This story is particularly noteworthy to me because I wrote the review for "Drive" in the Daily, and I gave it a four−star rating. In the article, I specifically praised the film for the way it "defies viewers' attention spans that have been conditioned to expect cheap thrills." On Metacritic, "Drive" received positive reviews from 35 out of 40 critics. It seems that Deming is filing her lawsuit because she thought she would be seeing a bad film, and was disappointed when it turned out to be good. Just writing that last sentence made me question my sanity.
For those of you who have not seen the film in question, allow me to clarify a few things. Deming is correct in her assessment of "Drive." It has two major car−chase sequences. There are also a handful of short violent scenes. However, this film is not the next installment in "The Fast and the Furious" franchise, nor was it ever intended to be.
"Drive" is a well−developed character study and a crime drama. Furthermore, it only had a production budget of $13 million, so there was a clear financial limit to the number of possible stunts. Compare that to the $125 million production budget for "Fast Five" (2011), which came out six months ago, and it is easy to see why these two movies are incredibly different. Any person with Internet access could have come to this conclusion after two minutes of research.
It is hard for me not to viciously bash Deming as a person. I do not know anything about her beyond the limited information given in news articles, and for this reason, I will avoid calling her stupid, idiotic, pea−brained or any other synonym that seems to apply. However, Sarah Deming did commit an act of unbridled stupidity. She also found some opportunistic and unprincipled lawyer to participate in her farce. As far as frivolous lawsuits go, this one is pretty foolish.
In all likelihood, the lawsuit will be dismissed due to the legal precedent of "common sense," which states that people who do really, really dumb things do not deserve the attention of the American judicial system.
Yet, this story still troubles me because Sarah Deming is the typical moviegoer in our country. Call her Jane Doe. Jane Doe wants to go to a movie theater for some uncomplicated entertainment. She wants formulaic plots and simple characters and a lot of car chases. In other words, Jane Doe wants to see bad movies. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Without bad movies, we wouldn't be able to appreciate good movies. Plus, sometimes it's nice just to go sit in an air−conditioned theater, eat some Raisinets, and watch "The Hangover Part II" (2011), even though it has the same exact plot structure as "The Hangover" (2009). But for a woman to sue after being exposed to an original and artistic film? That is absurd. What's more absurd is that the average moviegoer probably agrees with Sarah Deming.
Maybe we should direct the cinematic lawsuits at the right culprits. I've contacted my family's legal representation and have proposed suing Michael Bay, James Cameron and Joel Schumacher for ruining movies. Who's with me?
--
