World

8° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

The King family: Fighting over the dream

Martin Luther King's life was going to get the Spielberg treatment. Then a family feud turned toxic and the lawyers marched in, reports Guy Adams

Steven Spielberg intended to co-produce a biopic, billed as the 'defining' tale of how Martin Luther King rose to become a figurehead of the civil rights movement

AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Steven Spielberg intended to co-produce a biopic, billed as the 'defining' tale of how Martin Luther King rose to become a figurehead of the civil rights movement

For a man who preached unity and brotherhood, and so eloquently spoke about a dream that his children might grow up to be judged by the "content of their character", Martin Luther King appears to have enjoyed remarkably little success teaching those noble virtues to his own nearest and dearest.

The offspring of the late civil rights leader, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the struggle against racial segregation, are embroiled in an ugly dispute over plans for a Steven Spielberg film celebrating his life, times and legacy as a modern American icon.

In a deal announced this week, the famous director's production company, Dreamworks, became the first film-makers to acquire rights to King's speeches, books and back catalogue of intellectual property, including the famous speech delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 "march on Washington".

Spielberg intended to co-produce the biopic, billed as the "defining" tale of how King, a clergyman from Atlanta, orchestrated the Montgomery bus boycotts which kick-started the civil rights struggle in 1955, and rose to become a figurehead of the movement until he was shot and killed on a hotel balcony in 1968, at the age of 39.

In a statement to the Hollywood newspaper Variety, Spielberg said he was "honoured" to have been chosen to "tell the story of these defining, historic events", adding: "It is our hope that the creative power of film and the impact of Dr King's life can combine to present a story of undeniable power that we can all be proud of."

The news sparked huge excitement since, despite the fact that King is one of the greatest public speakers of the 20th century, no Hollywood film-maker has ever been granted permission to being his famous speeches to the big screen.

Although the movie won't be cast for some time, local pundits were on Tuesday tipping stars such as Will Smith, Denzel Washington and Jamie Foxx for the lead role, and hoping that Spielberg, who made the historical films Munich and Schindler's List, might agree to return to the director's chair.

That was then. Unfortunately, less than 24 hours after the Oscar-winning director made his bullish statement, it emerged that two of King's three surviving children are threatening to sue because the lucrative film deal was brokered without either their knowledge or blessing.

Bernice King and her eldest brother, Martin III, say they are "taking action" against their estranged sibling, Dexter, who is chief executive of the King estate, because he apparently decided to negotiate the entire film deal with Spielberg and Dreamworks without attempting to seek their permission.

"We are taking action. We cannot reveal what it is at this time," Bernice told reporters. "This is a deal that Mr Spielberg and his people have entered into believing that they have the blessing of the King Estate. They don't have the blessings of Bernice and Martin King."

The comments will spark a fresh of hostilities in a long-running row between the three siblings, whose behaviour as joint beneficiaries of their father's estate has for years seen them accused of tarnishing his legacy in order to fill their own bank accounts.

Despite King's standing as a bona fide American hero, whose birthday is celebrated with an annual public holiday in the US each January, the children have always insisted on hefty remuneration from anyone wishing to print or broadcast his zealously copywrighted speeches or writings.

In the 1990s, they successfully sued USA Today and CBS for publishing and broadcasting the "I Have a Dream" speech without paying for it, in what became a test case. In 1997, the estate signed a multimedia publishing deal with Time Warner, which was reportedly worth between $30m (£19m) and $50m.

Scholars have since accused King's family of denying them access to important research materials. Yet the estate nonetheless recently saw fit to sell rights to use the "I Have a Dream" speech in television advertisements, and have attempted to sell King memorabilia to private bidders via auction.

Last year, a further scandal erupted after it emerged that Dexter King had insisted on a payment of more than $800,000 being made for the use of his father's image and writings on a planned national memorial to Martin Luther King in Washington.

That request was, however, deemed a step too far by Bernice and Martin III, who filed a high-profile lawsuit accusing Dexter of misusing funds, and asking him to open the financial accounts of their father's estate. They told reporters that their brother had for years been running the estate without their input.

Dexter King countersued, saying they were obstructing the goals of his organisation, and then fired off a second lawsuit demanding they hand over personal effects that belonged to their mother, Coretta, to a ghost writer hoping to fulfill a $1.4m deal to compile an authorised memoir.

All three lawsuits are still outstanding. Yesterday, Dexter King released a statement which, while not addressing his estranged brother and sister's specific complaints about the Spielberg film, insisted that he alone is in charge of granting access to his father's intellectual property.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Martin Luther King
[info]boeticia wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 03:03 am (UTC)
For certain Martin Luther King, with his "dream" for his people, had not envisioned the capacity of his
children in tarnishing the noble heritage of equality and freedom he had wished for all AfroAmericans, in his children's constant pursuit for financial compensations, turning their father's legacy into a
moneymaking enterprise. A sad state of affairs, one might say. Hopefully, they will reflect on their
actions and do what is right, and which could make their father proud of them in the end.
Unlikely!
[info]joe_203 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
Martin Luther King was spot on when when he said his dream was to have people judged on the, "content of their character". So what does the jury feel about the character of his children?
Re: Unlikely!
[info]boeticia wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)

Unlike the civil rights movement's battle cry "we shall overcome", the great Rev. Martin Luther King's
offsprings' musical taste seems to be .... "money makes the world go around". THere could be a
backlash from the wrong quarters as a result.
No truck with Zionists
[info]hughzurrer wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 06:30 am (UTC)
Why on earth would the King family want a Zionist Jew like Spielberg to have anything to do with Martin Luther King? It was the Zionist ADL, who as an arm of the Mossad, spied on Martin Luther King and other black civil rights leaders during the 1960's and may well have had a hand in his assassination.
The Zionists have continued to abuse Martin Luther King's memory, even going to the lengths of inventing quotes by him in support of Israel...

www.counterpunch.org/kiblawi01172004.html
Martin Luther King
[info]fox2step wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 06:55 am (UTC)
Well it's the American way.
Maybe they don't like Spielberg
[info]ejh16 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 11:07 am (UTC)
Maybe Mr King's children just do not want to see this silly director make a tacky film about their father that will become his "defining" image. Let Mr Spielberg go and make his space alien flicks and Israel-friendly "historical" films and leave Mr King's story for a better director.

http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
capitalism
[info]jamikaajalon wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 01:36 pm (UTC)
lets not forget that in the 80s it was a struggle to get thie 'american' heros name recognisied, as a national holiday... let alone black history month.... i am not condoning greed... but the obvious slant of this artical against the children of dr. martin luther king leaves out a important historical backdrop to what is happening now. At the end of the day, every subversive, revolutionary figure these days becomes reified and quickly commercialised.... weather or not the family of the deceased have access to that money... we need to a look at our CAPTIALIST CULTURE, before we begin judging individuals within the system ...
I saw the deram
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 06:02 pm (UTC)
Well said and well seen todate. The future I am not sure
Firozali A.Mulla
TYPO DREAM
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)
DREAM I AM SORRY TOO TIRED OFF TO SLEEP TO SEE MINE
Very sad
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 08:09 pm (UTC)
I can imagine MLK turning in his grave at all these shenanigans and how his children have turned his memory into an ugly legacy. I also think someone Jewish like Spielberg is hardly the person to deliver something genuine and will instead deliver a hopelessly sentimental pile of Oscar winning crap. Surely Spike Lee is the man for the job here?
Re: Very sad
[info]ejh16 wrote:
Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 11:02 pm (UTC)
Spike Lee is a Malcolm X man. If you read the biography of Malcolm X, you will see that it is highly unlikely that Mr Lee would be interested in making a MLK film

http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date