Wesley Hilliard
Apple TV+ show "Servant" allegedly stole key elements from a 2013 film called "The Truth About Emmanuel," and the trial is back on with a jury set to decide if Apple and M. Night Shyamalan should be fined $81 million.
Director Francesca Gregorini sued in January 2020, and the case was initially thrown out. She alleges that the dark themes surrounding a reborn doll and similar shots between the properties are enough to suggest copyright infringement.
According to a report from Variety, creators of the show and M. Night Shyamalan will testify to a jury. The jurors will watch "The Truth About Emmanuel" and the first three episodes of "Servant" to help make a determination.
Gregorini is seeking $81 million in damages. For comparison, "The Truth About Emmanuel" grossed $226 in Los Angeles and $9 in Philadelphia.
Shyamalan's defense argues that "Servant" was being written before the 2013 film ever debuted and that the concept of reborn dolls isn't something Gregorini invented. However, Gregorini argues it is more than simple plot points that were copied — entire scenes seem to be eerily similar between the properties.
"Servant" vs "The Truth About Emanuel"
I've watched "Servant" and read through the plot of "The Truth About Emanuel." The initial evidence with side-by-side scenes is also something I've taken into account.
Image source: Case 2:20-cv-00406-DMG-JC Document 1Simply put, these films share a few similarities, but the idea that one plagiarized the other is a stretch. There is a reborn doll, a nanny, and a traumatized mother in each story, but that is where the similarities end.
The movie "The Truth About Emanuel" centers around a woman named Emanuel that babysits for a woman named Linda. She quickly discovers there isn't a baby, but instead a reborn doll.
Emanuel spends the film trying to keep the reborn doll a secret. She forms a close relationship with Linda, then later when the doll is discovered by someone Linda is courting, Linda snaps out of it and thinks Emanuel swapped the real baby for a doll.
In the end, Linda is put in a psychiatric hospital. It's a kind of tragic drama about Emanuel coming to terms with her own mother's death.
Image source: Case 2:20-cv-00406-DMG-JC Document 1"Servant," on the other hand, is not. Spoilers for the first three episodes follow.
After a tragic loss of their child, a reborn doll is given to Dorothy to help her grieve, but she believes it is real. As she is about to return to work as a news anchor, she hires a babysitter, Leanne, who treats the reborn doll as a real baby at all times.
In episode two, the reborn doll is now a living, breathing baby. The show suggests it might be a supernatural occurrence, but the central plot is about where this living baby came from, who Leanne really is, and whether Dorothy will ever realize what really happened to her baby.
Image source: Case 2:20-cv-00406-DMG-JC Document 1It seems that it is a total coincidence that "Servant" just happens to include vaguely similar shots. Even the evidence provided by Gregorini is a stretch, like the underwater scene in "Emanuel" is a dream sequence where the house fills with water, while Leanne in the tub is just her lying in shallow water.
Of course, it is up to the jury to decide whether to charge Apple and Shyamalan with copyright infringement. The case is expected to last about two weeks.
-m.jpg)
William Gallagher
Mike Wuerthele
Amber Neely
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
Andrew O'Hara
7 Comments
If I described the plots as a traumatized mother with a doll that becomes a real baby, with a mysterious nanny, and ("total coincidence, vaguely similar") underwater scenes, I think most people would think one plagiarized the other, even if they don't have a scene-by-scene duplication. You can't think "Oh there's been dozens of films that have a doll becoming a real baby for a traumatized mother who hires a weird nanny, and there's this underwater scene, yeah, happens all the time."
I usually don't buy plagiarism lawsuits, especially in the music biz, but this seems a little too coincidental to me. Pay the man a reasonable sum.
imagine the lawsuits if they looked at all the horror movies with masked knife wielding killers :o
I think this is a call for desperation for money. anything that they see similar they would call it plagiarism. next thing you know you can have any scene in the movie no more because any scene already appear in another movie before. oh my god! think about the future when we see movie and there is no enjoyment to it because a lot of the scene that should be there, they would have to cut it off due to similarity it that could call for plagiarism.