Basinger vs. ‘Helena’: The Verdicts Are In

Regarding “Is She the Villain--or a Victim,� by Judy Brennan (Jan. 2):

It is unfortunate that after receiving a unanimous jury verdict in Superior Court we are now compelled to defend ourselves in the media against Kim Basinger’s attempt to justify her irresponsible and unprofessional conduct.

Basinger did not just “consider taking the role� of Helena, as your article states. She committed herself legally and morally both orally and in writing, according to a jury of her peers. Her breach and subsequent denial of this agreement are what landed her in her current situation.

Stardom in Hollywood carries numerous benefits, including wealth and power--the power to command a cover story in the Sunday Calendar section, one that is no more than slick PR. With that power many stars forget that they must abide by the same rules that govern all people. Although they are seldom called to task for their transgressions, in this case one was.

Are we to sympathize with Basinger as a victim? How about the producers of “Boxing Helena,� who have devoted years of their lives and are now being forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to stand up for their rights? After winning a hard-fought battle in court, we continue to be denied the amends Basinger should make--an apology and a check.

To respond to all of the calculated, one-sided inaccuracies in the article would require more space than the article itself, and frankly few people, we expect, would have the patience to revisit them point by point.

Suffice it to say that Main Line Pictures has no desire to interfere with Basinger’s family plans. We simply seek to be paid what we are owed. Basinger and her attorneys are distorting the truth to sensationalize, to create unwarranted sympathy for Basinger and to attempt to avoid her obligation to pay her debts to not only Main Line Pictures but all of her other legitimate creditors.

JAMES R. SCHAEFFER

CARL MAZZOCONE

Los Angeles

Schaeffer is chairman and Mazzocone president of Main Line Pictures Inc.

*

Having been the presiding juror for the Kim Basinger-Main Line Pictures case, I feel obligated to point out some misconceptions in your article.

First of all, Basinger’s self-proclaimed innocence was, quite simply, contrary to the evidence presented, which ultimately resulted in the verdict of the jury. The decision was unanimous. Furthermore, you mention that Basinger never signed a long-form acting agreement, but what you neglected to mention is that she never signed seven of the long-form agreements (contracts) for her previous nine movies!

Secondly, the assertion that the jury ignored the court’s instruction regarding damages is simply not true. The difficulty of estimating damages lies in the believability of “expert� witnesses. Not surprisingly, the experts were on opposite sides of the spectrum when estimating the possible net profits from the film.

The statement attributed to juror Chawn Sanders--that she didn’t understand how the jurors could be invited to the premiere of a movie that the producer didn’t have enough money to complete--is absurd. The jury viewed the movie as evidence!

The assertion that the judge did not allow Basinger’s attorneys to provide evidence with respect to industry practices is hogwash. Both sides spent a great deal of time explaining how Hollywood operates. I learned enough about the business to know that I chose the right career path.

In closing, I would like to comment on the actions of the court clerk. In my opinion, her actions, however inappropriate they may have been, simply have no bearing on the case. Her actions happened long after the trial was over. The jury never had any knowledge of the clerk’s actions.

I still believe that the jury’s decision was correct, and that the judgment for damages was fair.

KEVIN S. ANDERSEN

Los Angeles

*

If Hollywood has a blacklist, this so-called producer Carl Mazzocone should top it. Basinger has been done a great injustice by some greedy wanna-be, who didn’t have the guts to sue Madonna (she has so many millions she would’ve chewed him up and spit him out).

As a writer-producer, you learn rather quickly in this town that a so-called deal isn’t a deal until it’s signed, sealed and delivered. One day you have a major star, production company and major studio interested in your film, and the next week or month, you’re back to square one. A gamble you take, and pay for, just by being in this business. When things fall through, you pick up and start over again.

What this guy has done to screenwriters and producers is make it harder than hell to get a star to commit to your project. He’s not only robbed Basinger of millions, but he’s robbed other up-and-coming writers and producers of their opportunities. It’s a shame. And it’s a shame that our judicial system is so star-struck that it can’t deal in the realities of filmmaking and how the deal is really made.

Basinger was just doing what hundreds of major stars have done for years: She believed in a project and wanted to be involved but after serious thought and discussion with her representation decided it was not the best thing for her to do.

I’ve got news for Mazzocone: “Boxing Helena,� Basinger starring or not, would not have made him anywhere near $8 million. It lost money because it wasn’t a good film. Not even the great publicity and hype he created with the case could get people to go see it.

AUDREY KELLY

Beverly Hills

*

I read with interest and delight about the decision against Basinger. I assume this means that I, as an actress, can sue all of the producers, directors or production companies that have verbally promised me roles, only to renege once Demi-Julia-Jodie-Michelle became affordable or available.

Let’s see, I could start with the director who promised me that big role in . . . well, there’s too many to even begin, and besides, I’m not sure it works both ways. However, now that I think I understand the judicial system, the possibilities seem limitless. I and thousands of other actresses stand to make millions, n’est-ce pas ? Perhaps Carl Mazzocone’s attorneys would represent us, on a pro-quid basis, of course.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, I’m quite certain that Basinger is absolutely thrilled that 1993, the so-called Year of the Woman, has finally come to a screeching halt.

CLAUDIA CHRISTIAN

Los Angeles

*

I do not profess to understand the legal nuances of the Basinger case, but I do know that I became a fan of hers last spring, when amid all of her trials and tribulation, Basinger took the time to personally write a letter of congratulations to the Taft High School academic decathlon team.

Because she lives in Woodland Hills, she expressed her pride in the accomplishments of her “home� school, the value and worth of academic studies and the importance of acknowledging Taft’s success. For that I commend her--along with the good sense in trying to extricate herself from a ridiculous movie.

MICHELLE WEISS Canoga Park

*

I found your one-sided article on Basinger to be utterly ridiculous.

You gleefully pointed out that “Boxing Helena� bombed at the box office, in a ruthless attack against director Jennifer Lynch and Main Line Pictures, as if they were the villains. They had all legal right to sue Basinger for breach of contract; the fact that Basinger is famous does not give her the right to break the law.

As for Basinger’s tacky comment about Lynch and Main Line being “wanna-bes� concerning Hollywood, let me remind her that she hasn’t had a box-office hit in years. So I guess that qualifies her as a “has-been,� right?

RACHELLE MOORE

Marina del Rey

*

I can’t believe that so many words were wasted on an article about Basinger. She’s overhyped and under-talented, and her marrying Alec Baldwin was the biggest so-what of ’93. I think she and Hollywood are definitely overestimating her popularity.

With some irreplaceable losses in ‘93, your first cover of ’94 could have been put to much better use.

ROBIN SCHULTZ

Oakland

*

I was surprised to read in your profile of Kim Basinger that she is still puzzled why her actions infringed the rights of producer Carl Mazzocone. One would think that after sitting through the trial she would understand the legal principles involved even if she did not agree with the jury’s findings.

This case sets no legal precedents. The producer sued for breach of a written contract in the form of a letter deal memo. While the attorneys were negotiating the terms of the long-form contract, which would spell out the details, Basinger changed her mind and reneged on the deal. Mazzocone then did something that is rare in Hollywood--he sued a star.

In Hollywood today there are many producers with scripts chasing a limited number of stars. Stars are sought because the companies that finance movies believe that a star’s involvement will reduce financial risk (a questionable assumption) and help distribute and market a film.

As a result, the stars, and their agents, largely determine which projects get made. Producers ardently flatter, cajole and woo stars to obtain their participation. Perhaps that is why some stars come to believe that the ordinary rules of commerce don’t apply to them. MARK LITWAK

Santa Monica

Litwak, an entertainment attorney and law professor, is the author of “Reel Power.�