Page 57 - RICHERT VS. SORKIN THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE WEST WING

Ms. Sally Burmester
November 16, 1995
Ptge2 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID EVAT{S
Well, as you know, it has now been admitted that cycty single one of these representations was false. Reiner and Sorkin both now admit to meeting with Redford to discuss the concept, story and characters (characters Fing necessarily embedded in any description of the story) of "The President Elopes" priorto Sorkin writing his draft. Further, Reiner and Sorkin both-admit that Fty !"O i"_ 4"q physical possession then one of the earlier versions of "The President Elopes" (the Ganz-Mandel reurite of one of Richert's drafts). Reiner denies reading the Ganz-Mairaet draft, but how believable is it that a script sent to Reiner with a major A-lEvel star (Redford) attached would just be thrown on a shelf somewhere and read by neitf,er Reiner nor anyone else at Castle Rock? If industry cus_tom is any guide, it is a certainty that they at least had-coverage
done o.n the script which would have beeh given to Reiner.
normally presumes that a script has been read once access has been established. Sorkin-now admits that he alsohad ig hh own hands, prior to writing his draft, the Ganz-Mandel rewrite of $chen]s sclP!.alqugh Sorkin claims to have rcad "fewer that ten pages" of it (Daily ,[grigJy, N-ovember 16th). Tltg oqly relevant question at this point is the-following: ]f Sffi; hil Sqti$"q at $e-pre-arbltration hearing that, prior to writing his draft, he and Re'iner had met with Redford and discussed th.e_story and characters of "Thd President Elopes" and had seen the Ganz-Mandel venion of "The President Elopes" screenplay, but Sorkin claimed that he had ..t -g"d the tone and the characters somewhat and rewriiteir the scenes and dialogue and had therefore written an "origin{ s-gryenplay," would the pre-arbitration panel have-denied Bill BiStt"* and.KylgMorris irreducible storycredit? Clearly not. Remem&r, the basic premise of "The American Presidcnt" is the same as "The hesident Elopes," and many of the chiracter and story.elementsjre similar. No one is denying that Sorkin did a major rewrite -- his own "version" of "The President Elo-pes" - whiqh incorporated his and {einer's major creative
contributions to the prfture, b91$atls not the issue heie. Rather, it is whether irreducible story credit was denied Richert and Monis on legitimate grounds. Because those grounds have noi peen prov-en entirely false, story credit musl be rest6red to the original screeiwriters. Furrher, because $" p*:gbi.trati-o-r1 ruling biased and undermined the intefrty of the entire arbitration process, the credits should be completely re-arbitrated.
2. Sorkin and Horn seem to think it is relevant that neither Sorkin or Reiner read any of Bill Rit-hqt!'! drafts (or-thp RichenKyle Morris draft) of "The President Elopes" and did irot re.t with Richen. I needl]t say-much l,q*.- Eill and Ky19 wrote the first draft briginal screenplay for this picture, and the Ganz-Mandel draft Reiner adinits receiving and Sorkin iAmits reuOing part of was a rewrite of one of Richert's drafts and was based] ultimately, upon th; ori?ili screenplay wrinen by Richen and Morris.
3. Sorkin thinks his claim to have read "fewer than ten pages" of the Ganz-Mandcl draft is somehow relevant. Again, it must be presumed that he and Gstle Rock were familiar with the contents of the Ganz-Mandel draft grven that receipt and possession have been established. Also, Sorkin admits that he. got.the storyand characters^verba[r from Redford prior to Ueginni"g lii $u{.- Ag.3n, remember that the Sasic premises of "The foesident Elopesi' and "ThjAmefican President" are the same. and the story aid main characters are similar, despite ttr"rnanicfrangJi made by Sorkin and Reiner.
4. Richard Heller is quoted in pa.y]t Paily VariElv 1s s-t4ting that Sorkin's writer's agreement is dated August 1992 but Sorkin diAnt meci wi6-Redforduntit March of tggf. inis is a variagol gt $e argumerr madc by.Heller at ttrg pry-aruit""go" t"*i"g trrut Clrtri no"f i"g"rrv acquired U_niversaVWildwood's iights after thi date of Sorkin'i ,#jgik ugr"r..nt, an'd il qYIy irrclevant.-f'eine3 tra4 atrefv-met with Redford and discus*d C;6iy ano ctraracteii of "The President Elopes" and rrd;[t fuf*" A"gfi;i
recejvid I copy of the Cani-tvtanOei -|f;; -i
1992, and must have discussed "The lpgidenl Elopeit wittr Sortin
suppose it's theoretically possible that Reiner hired^Sorkin t" *il;fi;;pfaf in iugusi oi
-For
this-very rcason the guiid
t6-ni.ing i'irt.
"Every single one of these representations is false," writes David Evans.
This is true.