Amanda Knox was acquitted of the murder, but people continue to use her story as a cautionary story without asking her.
Amanda Knox’s story hit the headlines from 2007, when she was accused of murder, to 2015, when she was acquitted. This tragic saga never ended as the media took facts or examples from Knox’s life and used them to inspire sensational television shows, films and books.
Knox is now 34, a journalist and writer. She went on Twitter this week to post the new Matt Damon and Tom McCarthy movie. Still water, for using details about her life and case without speaking to her.
Is my name mine My face? What about my life My story? Why does my name refer to events I was not involved in? I return to these questions because others continue to benefit from my name, face, and story without my consent. Finally the film #Still water.
/ a thread
– Amanda Knox (@amandaknox) July 29, 2021
In this thread and on her website where she posted An entry, Knox explains, “This new film from director Tom McCarthy with Matt Damon in the lead role is based on the ‘Amanda Knox saga’ or is ‘directly inspired’ Vanity fair put it in a for-profit article promoting a for-profit film that I’m not associated with either. ”
She continues, “I want to pause here at this sentence: ‘The Amanda Knox saga’. What does that mean? Does it relate to everything I’ve done? No. It relates to the events that resulted from the murder of Meredith Kercher through a burglar named Rudy Guede, referring to the sloppy policing, the prosecutor’s tunnel vision and the refusal to admit their mistakes, which led the Italian authorities to wrongly convict me twice.”
Knox has a point when the title and thesis of their article and posts ask, “Who does my name belong to?” While there is no legal need to consult someone when you get inspiration from them to write your movie or television show, if you are using their name to showcase or promote things, you should probably give them a call.
While the film was not directly dubbed “The Amanda Knox Story” by marketers, no one is afraid to say so as numerous publications mention it and no one seemingly contradicts it. Even if the film diverges by the ton and is actually not that similar when it comes to the plot.
Tom McCarthy had said they weren’t making extensive use of the case. In fact, he was telling diversity“We decided, ‘Hey, let’s leave the Amanda Knox case behind'”, but as Knox writes in her post:
“But let me take that part of the story – an American who studies abroad, gets involved in some kind of sensational crime, and ends up in jail – and fictionalize everything around her. Let me stop you at this point. This story, my story, is Not about an American who studies abroad and is “involved in some kind of sensational crime”. It’s about an American NOT involved in a sensational crime and yet wrongly convicted. And if you ‘put the Amanda Knox case behind you’ and ‘fictionalize everything around it’, you may not be using my name to promote it. ”
It all boils down to how studios try to sell a movie. The marketing team behind it Still water probably thought it wise to tell the general public that they could watch a movie loosely inspired by something with cultural resonance. But no one thought of what that constant association would feel like with someone whose proven innocence she has still verbally assaulted, exploited, and constantly used to sell things she has no part in.
Turns out she doesn’t feel great.
I think the general lesson here is that when you have a movie loosely inspired by someone who lives, the important thing is to try to reach out to them and get the details from them. And if you get far behind their story in telling them, try to make sure you don’t use the name to further market the story.
Let us know what you think of the controversy in the comments.