Calls for Stronger Regulation in Fact-Based Films Post-Lawsuit

University Executive Advocates for Enhanced Regulation

Richard Taylor, a former deputy registrar at the University of Leicester, has called on Ofcom to fortify regulations governing fact-based dramas. This plea follows his experience of a protracted three-year legal battle, which he described as "anxious, stressful and hurtful." Taylor took legal action against renowned comedian and actor Steve Coogan, alongside the film's production company, Baby Cow, and the distributor Pathé, over their portrayal of him in the film The Lost King.

A Legal Victory Amidst Controversy

The 2022 film revolves around the significant discovery of King Richard III's remains in a Leicester car park. After a settlement was reached, Taylor was awarded damages, and the film will carry a statement clarifying that his character is fictionalized. A judge determined that Taylor was depicted in an "unrelentingly negative and defamatory" manner.

Urgent Need for Clearer Guidelines

In light of his experience, Taylor emphasized the necessity for Ofcom to provide clearer guidance on the representation of real-life figures in fact-based dramas. He pointed out that while the broadcasting regulator has robust standards for news accuracy, it lacks similar regulations for dramatizations that exist in a "grey area." He stated, "Ofcom should tighten that so people like me don’t have to rush off to the libel courts when nonsense like The Lost King happens."

Defining the Line Between Fact and Fiction

According to Taylor, there should be a distinction in storytelling when a work is marketed as a true story. He argues that not every scene or dialogue needs to be historically accurate, but there must be a substantial basis in truth. He suggests that if a film does not adhere to these standards, it would be more appropriate to alter character names and details to avoid misleading audiences.

Implications for Future Dramatizations

While Taylor expressed that he does not wish to complicate the creative process for writers, he believes his case should prompt Ofcom to take action. He noted, "This outcome is potentially quite challenging for people writing these dramas now … but Ofcom stepping in would be helpful." His concerns highlight the delicate balance between artistic expression and the responsibility of filmmakers to portray their subjects accurately.

Reflections on the Settlement

Reflecting on the resolution of his case, Taylor conveyed a mix of relief and regret, stating he was "relieved and happy, regretful that I ever needed" to take such measures. However, he expressed frustration that the film will continue to be screened. "I’d rather it was edited. I’d rather the whole film was withdrawn," he lamented.

Clarification to Appear in the Film

As part of the settlement, a statement will appear for a minimum of five seconds after the title card, clarifying that the portrayal of "Mr. Taylor" is a fictionalized character. He remarked that the film must essentially communicate, "based on a true story, but actually the main villain is completely made up because the real guy [of the same name] was acting with integrity. I think that’s going to make the film pretty ridiculous." This requirement underscores the ramifications of his lawsuit on how filmmakers handle real-life narratives.

Criticism of the Filmmakers

Taylor also criticized the film's creators for failing to verify the accuracy of the events depicted. He noted that his concerns regarding misrepresentation were largely dismissed prior to the film's release. "My view is that they were dismissive," he remarked, expressing his belief that Steve Coogan has maintained a sense of righteousness regarding the portrayal. Coogan, in turn, stated in a public statement that he would have preferred a judicial ruling on the matter rather than settling.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability in Storytelling

Taylor's experience serves as a significant reminder of the responsibilities that come with depicting real-life events and individuals in film and television. As the landscape of factual dramatization continues to evolve, it is clear that a more stringent regulatory framework is necessary to protect those whose lives are portrayed on screen. The debate surrounding artistic license versus factual accuracy is likely to gain momentum, and Taylor's case may well be a catalyst for change in the industry.