We’re only weeks removed from the triumphant Cannes premiere of Terry Gilliam’s “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.” After 25 years of setbacks, the filmmaker finally was able to screen his film for an audience and have a release in France. But all the while, there’s been this pesky court case looming over his head. And with the most recent ruling, it appears that all the fanfare and celebration will be short-lived. You see, Terry Gilliam no longer has the rights to the film he spent decades working on.
Yesterday, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that ex-producer Paulo Branco is indeed the owner of the rights, and Terry Gilliam’s film belongs to him. What does this mean for the future of the film? It’s still up in the air. Of course, the film has been released in France, and was seeking US and international distribution, but now that all seems to be put on hold, while Gilliam and Branco continue their war.
READ MORE: Terry Gilliam Fully Explains The Drama Regarding The Rights To ‘Don Quixote’
“The ruling means that the rights to the film belong to Alfama. Any exploitation of the film up until now has been completely illegal and without the authorization of Alfama,” said Branco, in an interview with Screen Daily. “We will be seeking damages with interest from all the people involved in this illegal production and above all, all those who were complicit in its illegal exploitation. We’re holding everyone responsible.”
As mentioned in that statement, Branco now is going to seek damages from Gilliam, Kinology (the Paris-based sales company and producer of the film), Ocean Films, and yes, even the Cannes Film Festival.
“The film belongs in its entirety to Alfama. The film was made illegally. It’s the first time, I’ve ever seen so many people embark on a mission to produce and exploit a film, without holding the rights. It’s a unique case,” continued Branco.
Branco’s son and lawyer, Juan Branco, specifically called out Thierry Frémaux, the Cannes boss, saying, “For me, this is very important because I spoke out publicly about this case with determination and also given the cynicism with which the establishment, Thierry Frémaux and [Minister of Culture] Francoise Nyssen – in a shameful conflict of interests for the latter, responded.”
For those who haven’t been following the case through our myriad of articles leading up to the Cannes premiere, Branco claims that a contract he wrote up with Gilliam is still valid. In the contract, Gilliam exchanges the rights to “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” for the promise of funding for the production. However, Gilliam claims that funding never came and he went to seek out a separate financier, and in turn, was able to finally produce the film. Branco says that the contract is still valid and everything Gilliam did after that contract was signed is in violation. That includes the production of the film, the deals sought with distributors, the premiere at Cannes, and the subsequent French release. And now, the courts seem to agree with Branco.
As far as what this means for the future, it’s unclear. As of now, Branco owns the rights and can negotiate his own deals for distribution. However, does this mean that Gilliam (as well as the cast) will promote the film for Branco? Unlikely. Will Branco go after large sums of money for what he deems were illegal activities? Probably. The drama surrounding this film is clearly far from over.
READ MORE: Cannes Says “Cinema Has Regained Its Rights” In Response To ‘Don Quixote’ Ruling
What is known for sure is that those of us outside of France, hoping to see “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” sometime in the near future, will have to wait a while before that happens. If that happens. And for Gilliam, it means that his passion project, that took the better part of three decades to come to fruition, is now the property of someone else. And judging by the comments, that person isn’t going to let Gilliam rest anytime soon.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://dev.theplaylist.net/terry-gilliam-don-quixote-rights-loss-20180616/&media=https://cdn.theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/14221127/man-who-killed-don-quixote-terry-gilliam-eea.jpg&description=The long, brutal court case over the rights to Gilliam's "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" is over, and the filmmaker lost the rights.){kind=link}
Paulo Branco seems like a real piece of shit.
I will only watch this film if it is pirated.
I have a feeling thats how its going to end up getting distributed, I sure hope so.
Well, fuck france … and fuck Branco too!
And fuck you!!
Gilliam’s next film should be a hostage movie.
Why are we not sending this piece of shit death threats? Nobodies on twitter get bombarded with harassment for the most trivial of things, a real life piece of shit is doing something that’s actually degenerative and exploitative and no one bats an eye. Where’s Heath Ledger;s joker when you need him. Worlds gone full cuck (thanks Jared Leto)
What a surprise. A French Court sided with a French citizen. Last time I checked a contract is only valid if both parties uphold their end of the deal. If Branco didn’t provide the funding, then he didn’t fulfill his part of the contract. How can any court then side with him?
Yeah such anti-American anti British bullshit…
How can an investor own the rights of something he hasn’t paid for? I am shocked the french court uphold such an unfair interpretation of a contract. At most the investor get the right to an unproduced script, no way he can claim the entire final product!
Seems the French are determined to make us regret bailing them out.
The article doesn’t explain the legal aspects at all. The ELI-5 version:
* Gilliam had been trying to complete the film – he needed money to finish it.
* On 14-May-2016 he signed an option agreement with Branco
* In that option agreement, Branco paid €25,000 and basically got ‘ownership’ of the project until the option expired or until he paid the rest of the money
* In that agreement he had 5 months to come up with the rest of the money … if Branco couldn’t come up with the rest of the money in that time, the ownership would revert back to Gilliam.
* However there was also a very common clause in the agreement that the 5 month countdown would pause if there were any legal disputes in that period, and the 5 month countdown would resume when the legal dispute was resolved
* In August 2016 (which is within the 5 month option period) Gilliam filed a legal dispute.
* On 14-October-2016, Gilliam filed a formal ‘Notice of Expiration’ saying that he considered the option with Branco to be expired, and granted the option to someone else
* Branco went to the High Court in the UK to get a declaration that the option hadn’t expired yet – that the 5 month countdown had been paused due to the French legal action
* The High Court agreed with Branco, and found that Gilliam had violated the contract.
* Gilliam appealed
* The Court of Appeal agreed with Branco
So (according to the UK High Court) it was Gilliam who was in breach of contract. He wasn’t allowed to sell the rights to anyone else while the original option hadn’t expired. And the original option hadn’t expired because he started legal action within the option period.
This is a finding of the UK High Court … whatever the French Court said was irrelevant.
— Mac
(Yeah – I simplified a few things.)
Source: The UK Court of Appeal findings: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/767.html
“Branco claims that a contract he wrote up with Gilliam is still valid. In the contract, Gilliam exchanges the rights to “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” for the promise of funding for the production. However,
Gilliam claims that funding never came and he went to seek out a separate financier, and in turn, was able to finally produce the film. Branco says that the contract is still valid…”
HOW the fuhk does Branco win? He didn’t carry out his end of the contract so that should make his claim, predicated on providing the funding, null and void! WTF is wrong with the French court system???
So, this is now a nationalism thing and not a complex legal thing? There’s very little in this article that really explains what’s going on but the assumption is that Blanco is a dick who just hates Gilliam. Why is this what passes for “news”? I have loved Gilliam’s work for over 40 years but I refuse to take this short sheeted article on the assumptions it proposes. I want to side with GillIam but everything looks like mud from here.