Letters about Benefit of the Doubt, 1967

The following correspondence points to the link between Benefit of the Doubt and a different set of problems. In September 1967, after producing the film with the full assistance of Brook and the Royal Shakespeare Company, Whitehead received a short letter from Dick Patterson, "the appointed agent for the rights to the stage play US." Patterson, on behalf of Brook, suggests that Whitehead's film—longer and conceptually more complex than originally planned—is now unacceptably similar to Brook's own new film Tell Me Lies, which itself incorporates many of the ideas and music of US. "Instead of being a comfortable and indeed delightful ally," explains Patterson, "you have turned into competition." Though the letter suggests that the forthcoming New York Film Festival screening would be permissible, a distribution agreement would be possible only if certain changes were made "to get the film back to its original purpose and intent." The included letters detail the emergence and negotiation of this creative dispute.

Letter from Dick Patterson to Peter Whitehead, September 19, 1967

Dear Peter,

Peter Brook—MAKE AND BREAK

As the appointed agent for the rights to the stage play US I fear that I must inform you of a quite serious problem. Several of the authors feel that the basic understandings and precepts have been over-looked in the final version of your film. Everyone was encouraging and co-operating when you wanted to make a 16mm documentary about the controversial theatrical production. You have produced a film that runs approximately 90 minutes in which, it seems, at least half the material is the same basic material that Peter Brook used in his film.

Instead of being a comfortable and indeed delightful ally, you have turned into competition.

Therefore, while none of the authors would care to interfere with the running at the New York Film Festival, we do all feel that some basic alterations, to get the film back to its original purpose and intent, must be made before you enter into a distribution agreement.

When you return from New York and when Peter Brook is in better physical shape, we can discuss the specifics that could be necessary.

Thank you,
Dick Patterson

Whitehead to Patterson, October 14, 1967

Dear Mr. Patterson,

The Benefit of the Doubt

We have received a copy of your letter to Mr. Arnold Weissberger dated October 2nd, with which you enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to us and alleged to be dated September 19th. We would point out that we hold a further copy of this letter, the date of which appears to have been altered from September 26th and furthermore that the original of this letter has not been received by Mr. Whitehead to this day.

Apart from the first paragraph of your letter to Mr. Weissberger, which is simply untruthful, we are advised that the second paragraph constitutes a gross libel against Mr. Whitehead and this Company.

Accordingly we have to notify you that unless within the next seven days a written apology and retraction of the allegations complained of is made to us, Mr. Weissberger and all others persons who have received copies of your letter or to whom similar allegations have been made either by you or the Company you represent, we shall have no alternative but to ask our Solicitors to take such legal action as may be necessary to protect our rights in relation to the above film.

cc. Derek Hornby Esq.
Peter Hall Esq., C.B.E.
Peter Brook Esq., C.B.E.
Jeremy C. Taylor Esq.
Saga Film S.A.

Yours faithfully,
for and on behalf of
Lorrimer Films Limited
Peter Whitehead
Director

Whitehead to the General Manager, Royal Shakespeare Company, October 14, 1967

Dear Sir,

"The Benefit of the Doubt"

We would refer to the Agreement between us dated the 3rd March 1967, pursuant to which we have completed a documentary film entitled as above which, as you may know, received its first public screening at the New York Film Festival last month.

Peter Brook originally approached us with a request that we...