sexploited

In any society which incorporates free speech, it is a certainty that arguments as to the limits of that speech will take place. For the industry of cinema, there are no special releases from this universal truth. What responsibility does the historical action film have to represent events within factual truth? Should the documentary filmmaker attempt to establish an argument, or present only objective truth? As an audience, is it our job to observe films with a discerning eye, or should we have the privilege of checking that discernment at the door, trusting the filmmaker not to betray the trust that comes with suspension of disbelief?

A new argument has been brought to the forefront with the attempt at production of a film portraying the story of Jaycee Dugard, the California native who was abducted at age eleven and held for eighteen years by convicted rapist Phillip Garrido and his wife. That argument is this- what right should a person have to their own story? Should an individual, a private citizen, have the right to block their narrative from being told against their consent?

Let's look at this example of the Jaycee Dugard story further. The filmmaker is Shane Ryan, who has made a career out of several films focusing on themes sexploitation and violence. Some previous credits include the trilogy of films titled Amateur Porn Star Killer, the 2009 horror film Vaginal Holocaust, and his 2006 self-focused documentary, Big Boobs, Blonde Babes, Bad Blood.

This article is not meant to be a general criticism of Ryans' artistic style or choice of content, there is certainly an audience for this style. If there's a profit margin to be made and no one suffers, then let the first amendment reign.

But in this case, we have a specific person whose life will be put back in the limelight against her will, being made by a filmmaker whose reputation suggests that its' form would be exploitative in nature, although he has publicly stated that is not his intent. The tentative title of the film says much by itself- Abducted Girl, An American Sex Slave.

In a statement made to etonline.com, Nancy Seltzer, the families representative, stated, "If and when Jaycee and her family think it is appropriate, their story will be told by them, in a forum of their choosing with the respect and thoughtfulness they so deserve. Anyone else speculating about the details of such a personal hurt, for financial gain, is exploitive, hurtful, and breathtakingly unkind."

And unkind it may be. But Ryan is also completely within his legal rights to produce this film, with or without the Jaycee or the family's consent. Deals are often made between Hollywood studios and individuals, both public and private, for what are called "life story rights". But this is essentially a misnomer. What is actually being made is an agreement for the subject not to sue the filmmaker for defamation or violation of privacy rights, which are the only rights granted to citizens, public or private. That being said, in a medium as abstract as film, it is very easy for a subject to at least allege defamation. So to protect themselves, studios will often negotiate for these rights, but that by no means gives them exclusive privileges to the story, and is by no means a requisite to produce a film.

Is the letter of the law ethical? Ryan could change the names of the characters in his film, but it would still clearly be the story of Jaycee Dugard. We see a similar formula applied every week in the hit television series Law and Order, a show which makes a practice of basing their episodes off the most recent headline or gratuitous police beat story.

But equal problems arise if we grant an individual personal rights to their story. If that were the case, even if the Dugard family wanted, badly wanted, their story to be told, it could be blocked Garrido, not because it is slanderous or defaming, but simply because he does not want the story told. We can clearly see other ramifications this could have on the industry, putting a major burden, if not killing altogether, the ability to create satire or films that contain political commentary. If we extend these rights to the families of the deceased, it could be almost guaranteed that historical nonfiction such as Frost/Nixon or Good Night, and Good Luck would rarely see the light of day. Even concerning the lives of private citizens, not public individuals, we would be greatly compromising the freedom of speech, and the possibility of stories that would be in the public benefit to be told being negated.

And yet, here we have a young girl, who has already endured a life most of us could never imagine if we dared, who will have her story created for someone else's profit, possibly in an exploitative fashion, without her consent. As long as the events portrayed are factual, there is little they could litigate against even after the films release. Shane Ryan's personal ethics aside, should our legal system support his ability to produce this film? It is the unfortunate burden of the first amendment that it must extend to all philosophies, but it seems that somewhere there lies a compromise where a victim of kidnapping and rape should have the opportunity to begin leading a normal life, and if she chooses, keep her private suffering precisely that- private.