MovieChat Forums > Hysteria (2011) Discussion > Rip Off

Rip Off

posted 13 years ago by SamE1331
35 replies | jump to latest

Sarah Ruhl should get a legal team. Because the summary for this movie is pretty much identical to her successful Braodway play: In the Next Room (Or The Vibrator Play). The play was nominated for the Tony for Best Play and starred Laura Benanti and Michael Cerveris, so I doubt the team behind the movie never heard of it, especially the writers. When I first saw a blurb about this in a magazine I thought they must have taken the play and changed the title for a movie adaptation, but since Ruhl's name is nowhere to be found on the films page, it seems like its just the most blatant rip off in recent memory. Good job Hollywood, you always know how to cash in on someone else's success.

[–] eo5 13 years ago

I thought the exact same thing, so I came looking for this page as well. I don't DOUBT that two people could have come up with the same idea, but seems awfully fishy.

Sarah has cited two books as inspiration/reading she did before writing, so maybe they had read the same books (unsure of their release dates). The play DID first play in Berkeley, CA so I wouldn't say it wasn't possible anyone involved with this film saw the show out there. But Hugh Dancy and Maggie Gyllenhaal have ties to the theatre, they may have seen it themselves.

In any case, we can only hope the film is half as clever/beautiful as Sarah's play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Next_Room_(or_The_Vibrator_Play)

[–] ArlingtonMiles 13 years ago

Not sure if you have any idea how long it takes to get a movie off the ground, but the screenplay for "Hysteria" was written years before Sarah Ruhl's play - and there is a lengthy paper trail to prove it. Ms. Ruhl, therefore, need not get a legal team and you should not jump to conclusions.

[–] Chromaggia-Le-Fatale 13 years ago

I thought this film was an adaptation of the play.

Be as thou wast wont to be, See as thou wast wont to see...

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

That's what I thought too.

Even so, the writers for Hysteria could say they were only drawing from stories in the Victorian Era and there was no intellectual property stolen SamE1331.

The same thing was said about The Matrix, and the woman who claimed she wrote the book the brother's stole the plot from got nothing.

[–] PunchB 12 years ago

Don't know about that case with the woman author, but The Matrix was largely ripped off from The Invisibles, written by Grant Morrison.

[–] jesatsu 12 years ago

The Invisibles was so awesome.

[–] ggopen0 12 years ago

Not sure you have any idea how long it takes to get a play off the ground. Usually about 8 years of development. A screenplay can be written and then shot within 1-2.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melinda2001 8 years ago

Perhaps all good screenplays take a long time to write but that doesn't mean you can't write a poor one in substantially less. I'm not in the industry but I've had the sense that some movies are shot without screenplays altogether, or at least they write, edit, and shoot at roughly the same time. Some of those are even quite popular though I tend to dislike them. I really appreciate it when a writer plugs all the holes and ties up every loose end.

[–] bellamae 11 years ago

In the DVD extras, there was an interview w/ the director, Hugh Dancy and Jonathan Pryce. This movie took 8 yrs. to get made.

[–] JohnHitch 13 years ago

You got pwned by ArlingtonMiles you douche-y smart ass.

[–] live4movies 13 years ago

Two people come up with the same idea is fishy? True story of the origin of the vibrator being the vibrator calming women with hysteria...can't imagine anyone finding that out and thinking "hey there might be a story here". Also when the vibrator play begins it is already invented and being used. I love the play but doing a movie about the vibrator from its inception and a large social impact is not what the play covers/is about.

[–] wmoore1 12 years ago

This movie has little in common with Ruhl's play, which I did not see, but the synopsis given in the reviews sound nothing like this screenplay.

[–] guinevere_naberrie 13 years ago

I thought that same thing. I loved her play and the fact that this film just comes in and presents the story like it's something new is just wrong and unfair

[–] ciocio-2 13 years ago

Just to reiterate and make clear: The authors of the film script came to this subject matter on their own, and began writing the piece before Ms. Ruhl's play had been produced, or was at all widely known of (and possibly before she began writing; I don't know, and you probably don't either). Also, as someone else here has pointed out, the film and the play cover quite different aspects and have different plots (the movie dealing with the conception, invention, and development of the first automatic vibrator, and ensuing societal repercussions, and the play taking place after this development and progression have already happened).

As a great theater lover and participant myself, I have to say frankly, that you and others who jump in with conclusions based on nothing more than having seen or read the play, and start making false accusations of copying or plagiarism, sound similarly foolish to those dolts who got all upset about the Yeston musical TITANIC 'ripping off' the blockbuster movie of the same title, or the other bunch of dolts who, having seen the musical, got all upset that Jack and Rose were nowhere to be found in it, they being fictional, and the musical's characters being all based on actual people from the Titanic.

Do y'all really think it's so unlikely that multiple people, having heard about this interesting historical footnote, would be inspired to write stories or scripts about it? Have you ever heard of the two musical versions of Joseph Moncure March's THE WILD PARTY? Both of them opened in New York not only in the same season, but within weeks of each other, I believe, in 2000 (you probably already know all this). Anyway, don't jump so clumsily to conclusions, because THAT'S "just wrong and unfair."

[–] canmark 13 years ago

Saw the premiere of Hysteria last night (very well received, btw, lots of laughter). SLIGHT SPOILERS: The actual invention of the vibrator itself is not really central to the plot--in some ways it's more of a metaphor for the emancipation of women. Rather than women having to go to a (male) doctor to relieve their, uh, needs, the vibrator meant that a woman could look after herself privately, without the stigma of 'hysteria' or the need of a man. The film is actually a romantic comedy (heavier on the comedy than the romance), with plenty of double entendres--good, saucy fun. This is a mainstream film (which should do particularly well with female audiences) and I would think that much of the audience has not even heard of Ms. Ruhl's play, much less seen it (I haven't see it myself, although I did read the NY Times review of it, and it is quite different from the movie).

[–] MrSuave56 12 years ago

Thanks for that ciocio-2,don't know about the play,but I enjoyed the trailer for
Hysteria.The OP hopefully will read your post and whimper away!

"Judge a man not by the color of their skin,but by the content of their character."

[–] j00ze 13 years ago

Either way. They both got their idea from real life. Women really did go to the doctor to relieve their urges. Back then. lol.

[–] tl2055 13 years ago

If this was an adaptation of the play then she would have a case. Since its based on a true story no one can claim ownership of it. That's the reason there can be two Frida Kahlo movies in the works, or two films about Truman Capote writing In Cold Blood. The writer of one movie can't sue the writer of the other since they are both based on a true event.

Only if they were both based on a book or Copyrighted text would they have a case.

I believe whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you...Stranger

[–] dawn2dusk 12 years ago

I love it when people (see SamE1331 above) blame Hollywood for what he considers to be the shortcomings (i.e: Rip Off) of a movie filmed in England, funded by France and Germany.

What else is Hollywood to blame for? The collapse of Greece?

What an idiot.

[–] yojimboy 12 years ago

"What else is Hollywood to blame for? The collapse of Greece?"

Definitely: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084021/

[–] Anaheim92807 12 years ago

Just saw the preview for this film with my partner yesterday. We live in Orange County, CA, where the film will soon be coming. Both of us saw the Sarah Ruhl's play at the South Coast Repertory two years ago (in the fall of 2010). So when we saw the film preview yesterday, it was a definite "deja vu" moment for both of us! Same story line, same time period, same costumes! We enjoyed the play very much and are actually looking forward to seeing the movie. However, it is hard not to believe that the film is not a rip-off of the play or that the play is not a rip-off of the movie! All I can say is that the play premiered at the Berkeley Rep. in Feb. 2009 (3 years ago)and that Sarah Ruhl is a well established and reputable playwright.

[–] films42 12 years ago

You're basing your assessment "same story line" on the preview?!? Well please don't been too disappointed when you actually see the film & discover the story lines are COMPLETELY different.