Coke stops Christ taking a slug of cola
Tuesday, April 10th, 2007Granted it wasn’t quite the Second Coming, but still the Son of God was all set to make a welcome reappearance in Italy last Good Friday, only to be stopped short at the last minute.
His slated appearance was due to be in the Italian film, Seven Kilometres from Jerusalem, the plot of which follows an advertising executive who, suffering a mid-life crisis, journeys to the Holy Land and picks up a hitch-hiker…a hitch-hiker who it turns out is Jesus.
No, really.
Now whilst the Passion of the Christ stirred up all kinds of controversy over alleged anti-Semitism, the presence of Our Lord and saviour in this flick kicked up a stink from a different quarter. Strangely enough, the obvious candidate you’d think would summon a righteous storm of indignation, the Roman Catholic Church, was not it. No; according to the film’s director, Claudio Malaponti, the Pope has apparently seen the film – including the offending material – and given it his blessing, hoping the movie will “increase love for Jesus”.
And the offending material is…?
Well, in one scene, Christ takes a tug from a soft drinks can, and the ad exec comments what a great endorsement that would be. A quite amusing moment but otherwise pretty innocuous, right?
Not to Coca Cola, which was not at all happy that their soft drink was being consumed, on camera and without their permission. In their statement about the matter, the international soft drinks giant did not feel such product placement was appropriate for its brands, and threatened legal action if the scene wasn’t removed.
The Son of God, “not appropriate”?
Really, some stories you just can’t make up.
In all seriousness though, this is a fine example of what I call, “brand-clearance failure”, the consequence of which is that in this case production company, Rai Cinema, had to delay their movie’s release in order to comply with Coke’s demands. Coke had previously written to the producers asking for the scene to be cut, and was within its rights to do so; it had an established, trademarked brand, with a public perception about it, to protect. What the problem was, I don’t know. Perhaps they objected to their brand being treated as they saw it in an ironical or satirical way, and whether you think they had any reason to feel upset about this particular association of their product with Christ the Redeemer (one being tainted by the other – you choose which), whether you see this as a sense of humour failure on their part or not, is beside the point. Fact is they could take action to protect the use of their brand, and they did. The producers however, for whatever reason, had failed to comply. Coke then turned up the heat…. or the fizz.
Such actions like this are not unusual. Over the years I’ve heard tales of filmmakers, often as not young and inexperienced, get a rude awakening from brand owners. These Indies, whether through some form of assumption, ignorance, omission, or just plain stupidity on their part, have found themselves being distracted from their camera viewfinder by a persistent tapping on their shoulder, only to find themselves staring up at a very large and very expensive looking corporate lawyer, who very politely yet very firmly says “My client didn’t permission that”. The legal equivalent of a knee-capping normally follows from there.
From one production company having to go through their entire movie and digitally erase a sports brand from a main character’s sportswear, to another movie left sitting on the shelf, unreleased for three years, due to the fact its name bore not just an uncanny, but the exact and deliberate resemblance to that of a specific flavour by a popular brand of ice cream (and, considering the goings-on in the movie, no wonder ice cream makers weren’t happy), this happens – and happens a lot.
I have sympathy with them all; I’ve written and produced movies myself in a past life, and while this hasn’t happened to me (thank goodness), trust me when I say that the dent not just on your movie, but possibly your reputation, and almost certainly to your wallet in dealing with the legal wrangling and correcting the problem can be significant, if not crippling.
The lesson for filmmakers therefore is clear: if you’re contracting your cast and crew, paying your screenwriter for the script, forking out for the clearances on your music, then for goodness’ sake avoid branded products or clothes wear unless you have received specific written permission to use them first. This will mean contacting the product/brand owners, who will likely want to know more about the film. Tell them; it’s better they know up front than you get a kicking later, when it’ll you cost more time and money to fix than you can probably afford. If they say no, you can always find someone else. There usually is.
Scouting about for a good errors and omissions cover prior to shooting can also help. E&O insurance is the film industry equivalent of malpractice, or professional liability insurance cover; protecting against lawsuits arising from plagiarism, defamation, unauthorised use of characters, plot, titles etc. Part of the application process involves the insurance company going over the script with a fine toothcomb looking for anything potentially problematic, so as to assess the level of risk. Filmmakers can be aware of potential problems identified and seek to rectify them before the cameras roll. Sure, such cover can be expensive, but would you rather the money come out of the insurance company’s pocket if something did crop up, or your own?
At least new and low budget Indie filmmakers can take solace from this latest tale to be filed away in the “think through the legal implications first” department; even established veterans can get pulled up by the scruff of their necks.
Or the ring-pulls on their soft drink can.
© 2007 Julian Boote All Rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
—————————————————————————————————–
This article may contain the personal views of its author which are not the views of the duly noted® Ltd. unless specifically stated.