Skip to main content

Writers are notoriously given short shrift in Hollywood, and Mordecai Richler, who co-wrote the original 1977 version of Fun With Dick and Jane, apparently isn't getting his due credit this time around.

The late, great novelist wrote the 1977 script along with two others, David Giler and Jerry Belson, based on a story by Gerald Gaiser.

In ads for the remake (which opens today), Gaiser has been given credit for the story, along with two other writers, Judd Apatow and Nicholas Stoller. The latter two are listed as writers of the screenplay.

Story continues below advertisement

Where does this leave Richler?

Noah Richler, the writer's son, said he wasn't aware of the remake until he saw a billboard for the film. But Toronto lawyer Michael Levine, who represents Mordecai Richler Productions Inc. (which controls the late writer's rights), has been aware of the remake for months.

The new film's producers weren't able to settle who gets what credit before the movie's release. The matter is now being settled through an arbitration process with the Writers Guild of America.

"I think it would be misspoken to say that he didn't get the proper credit. It's a question of arbitration [as to]what is the proper credit. And unfortunately this didn't seem to get resolved before the movie came out. It's kind of one of those Hollywood stories," Levine said.

In other words, this sort of thing happens sometimes. On the other hand, Levine said it was "sloppy" of the producers of the remake to let the dispute get to this stage.

Since the movie is already released, it seems hard to add Richler's name to the credits. What is at stake is financial credit and the legal protection of Richler's legacy.

A spokesperson for Sony Pictures (the parent of Columbia Pictures, which is releasing the remake) wasn't available yesterday for comment.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter