Olivia De Havilland’s attorney argued Tuesday that there is a significant difference between the actress calling her sister a “bitch” and calling her sister a “dragon lady.” 
 
 Attorneys for De Havilland and for the cable channel FX appeared at a California Court of Appeal hearing to argue whether the actress’ lawsuit against producers of the miniseries “Feud: Bette and Joan” can move forward. A state superior court judge in August turned down FX’s request to have the suit thrown out. FX appealed, leading to Tuesday’s hearing. FX wants the suit tossed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that the suit could have a chilling affect on free speech. 
 
 The plaintiff’s lawyer complained that De Havilland is portrayed as a gossip who spoke casually and disparagingly of friends and acquaintances such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Frank Sinatra, and her sister, Joan Fontaine. A key issue, acknowledged Tuesday by both sides, was the use twice by De Havilland’s character — played in the series by Catherine Zeta-Jones — of the word bitch in reference to Fontaine. De Havilland’s lawyer argued that no record exists of De Havilland ever using the word, much less to identify Fontaine. FX’s lawyer cited on-the-record comments that De Havilland has made referring to Fontaine as a “dragon lady.” 
 
 Judge Halim Dhanidina, one of three judges on the panel, asked De Havilland’s attorney, “Is there a substantial difference between calling someone a bitch and calling her a dragon lady?” drawing laughter. De Havilland’s attorney replied, “Yes, there is, your honor,” adding, “In my household, if you say the word ‘bitch,’ you get your mouth washed out.” 
 
 De Havilland’s attorney argued that FX violated De Havilland’s publicity rights as a celebrity. She said that FX profited by having “honest, closed-mouthed, ladylike Olivia De Havilland” say that Crawford and Davis “hated each other and we loved them for it,” disparage Fontaine, and joke about Frank Sinatra’s drinking. 
 
 De Havilland’s attorney also dismissed the argument, asserted by FX, that such artistic liberties in a docudrama like “Feud” are protected free speech under the First Amendment and that to side with De Havilland would effectively destroy the ability of filmmakers to create such docudramas. 
 
 “Of course we will still have docudramas,” the attorney said. “What we need to have are docudramas that don’t defame, that don’t tell lies.” 
 
 Justice Lee Smalley Edmon responded, “How is that not censorship?” The attorney replied that it is not censorship because docudramas that don’t portray events in a way that is “intentionally false” would be protected. When Edmon asked whether the producers of “American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson” would have needed to gain Judge Lance Ito’s permission before producing a series that presents a reasonably accurate portrayal of Ito. De Havilland’s attorney responded that the First Amendment would protect an accurate portrayal. 
 
 FX’s attorney argued that the use of the word “bitch” by the De Havilland character in “Feud” is neither overly obscene nor out-of-character for the real-life De Havilland. He cited a reference in Shaun Considine’s book “The Divine Feud” to De Havilland using the word, allegedly saying “I don’t like to play bitches.” In “Feud,” the De Havilland character says a similar line, then adds “call my sister.” 
 
 “The show simply does not portray Ms. De Havilland as a vulgarian,” the FX attorney said. He noted that the De Havilland character is only on screen in 18 of the series’ 402 minutes, and is shown for the most part as being a supportive friend and confidante to Davis. He added that producers had changed “dragon lady” to “bitch” in another piece of dialogue because they felt the two words were synonyms and that “bitch” would resonate more with a contemporary audience. He also argued that De Havilland’s attorneys have failed to show necessary malice on the part of FX and the producers. 
 
 The court did not make a decision on whether or not the suit will move forward. 
 
 De Havilland, who is 101, sued FX in June, objecting to her portrayal in the Ryan Murphy series. In January, the MPAA joined with FX, urging the appellate court to overturn the superior court decision and throw out the suit. In their brief, the MPAA’s lawyers argued that they “cannot overstate the serious implications of the trial court’s ruling” for filmmakers who draw on real events for fictionalized works. 
 
 Tuesday’s hearing, through a quirk of scheduling, took place at the USC Gould School of Law, part of a program in which, once a year, the appeals court holds hearings on the USC campus in front of an audience of first-year law students, who are required to attend. De Havilland’s attorney began her argument by saying, “Olivia De Havilland is still alive,” noting that many of the students in attendance may not be aware of that fact. ||||| Olivia de Havilland, seen here in 1986, is still locked in a legal fight with FX over her portrayal in 'Feud.' (Photo: Lennox McLendon, AP) 
 
 FX's Feud finished its first season almost a year ago, but the TV network is still fighting actress Olivia de Havilland over what she termed her "gossipy" portrayal by Catherine Zeta-Jones in the limited series. 
 
 The 101-year-old actress first filed suit in June 2017, saying that the network and Ryan Murphy Productions never consulted her about the project, which examined the backstage drama on the set of the 1962 film What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? 
 
 In a Tuesday hearing held in a classroom at the University of Southern California's law school, attorneys for the actress, who lives in Paris and did not attend, attempted to move the case back to trial. 
 
 Depending on its outcome, the de Havilland case could set a precedent for what docudramas can and can't do in terms of storytelling. 
 
 According to The Hollywood Reporter, de Havilland's team argued that Feud incorrectly portrayed her as gossip and showed her character giving interviews that never took place. 
 
 "Docudramas are understood not to be a literal retelling of history," FX attorney Kelly Klaus countered. 
 
 The attorneys debated whether terms "dragon lady" and a female slur can be considered interchangeable. 
 
 De Havilland maintains she called her sister and fellow actress Joan Fontaine a "dragon lady," but onscreen, her character refers to Fontaine a "bitch." (You can watch the scene in question below.) 
 
 Klaus replied that the wording was changed only became it sounded more contemporary. 
 
 FX, which had previously filed a motion to dismiss the case citing California's anti-SLAPP law banning lawsuits intended to intimidate or silence criticism, reiterated their belief that the case should be dismissed since de Havilland's side hasn't produced any evidence of malice, and that her character was not substantial enough to be the reason for the show's success. 
 
 A judgment is due within 90 days. 
 
 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2DI98RO ||||| LOS ANGELES (CN) – Two-time Oscar winner Dame Olivia de Havilland sued the FX cable channel and show runner Ryan Murphy’s production company Friday, claiming that their mini-series “Feud: Bette and Joan” invades her privacy and falsely depicts her as a “petty gossip.” 
 
 Actress Catherine Zeta-Jones portrays de Havilland in the pseudo-documentary series, which is about the rivalry between Joan Crawford and Bette Davis while working on “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?” in the early 1960s. De Havilland, who lives in France, takes issue with the show’s re-enactment of a purported interview at the 1963 Academy Awards in which she is shown gossiping about the relationship between Davis and Crawford. 
 
 “There was never a rivalry like theirs. For nearly a half a century, they hated each other, and we loved them for it,” Zeta-Jones’ de Havilland says in the show. 
 
 But the real-life de Havilland says that such an interview never took place. 
 
 The 100-year-old actress, who played Melanie Hamilton in the iconic “Gone With the Wind,” is also irked with the show’s depiction of her calling her sister Joan Fontaine a “bitch” and commenting at the 1963 Academy Awards that Frank Sinatra had drunk all the alcohol in the backstage lounge. 
 
 At other times the show depicts her as a “petty gossip” she adds, calling the Oscars interview “fake” and “completely false.” 
 
 “FX defendants’ portrayal of Olivia de Havilland in ‘Feud’ creates the public impression that she was a hypocrite, selling gossip in order to promote herself at the Academy Awards. This did not happen and was false. There is no public interest to be protected by putting false statements into the mouth of a living person, using their name and identity for a false and unauthorized purpose, damaging their reputation. The First Amendment does not protect the false, damaging, unauthorized use of the name and identity of a real, living celebrity merely because the perpetrators cloak the work in the title of pure fiction, much less a pseudo-documentary film,” the lawsuit states. 
 
 De Havilland says that FX and Murphy cannot use free speech protections under the First Amendment to defeat her lawsuit. 
 
 “FX defendants misappropriated Olivia de Havilland’s name, likeness and identity without her permission and used them falsely in order to exploit their own commercial interests,” the complaint states. 
 
 De Havilland seeks damages, fees, and costs. She is represented by Suzelle Smith of Howarth & Smith in Los Angeles. 
 
 The actress will turn 101 on Saturday. 
 
 Like this: Like Loading... ||||| The actress, who turns 101 on July 1, is the only living person portrayed in the FX series. 
 
 FX has a legal feud on its hands following its series about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford — and it doesn't come from heirs of either of the titular characters. 
 
 Olivia de Havilland is suing the network and Ryan Murphy Productions over her portrayal by Catherine Zeta-Jones in Feud: Bette and Joan. 
 
 In a complaint filed Friday in L.A. County Superior Court, de Havilland claims she has built a reputation for integrity and dignity by refraining from gossip and other unkind, ill-mannered behavior — but the series opens with Zeta-Jones doing an interview as de Havilland and creates the impression that she was a hypocrite who sold gossip to promote herself. 
 
 "[A]ll statements made by Zeta-Jones as Olivia de Havilland in this fake interview are completely false, some inherently so; others false because they were never said," writes attorney Suzelle Smith. "FX defendants did not engage in protected First Amendment speech in putting false words into the mouth of Olivia de Havilland in a fake interview that did not occur and would not have occurred." 
 
 The star says Feud was designed to look like reality, but no one consulted her: the only person alive who experienced the events depicted. 
 
 Murphy admitted as much in an April interview with The Hollywood Reporter, saying he never contacted de Havilland about his series because he didn't want to intrude. "I didn't write Olivia because I didn't want to be disrespectful and ask her, 'Did this happen? Did that happen? What was your take on that?'" he said. 
 
 She also takes issue with Feud's references to her relationship with her sister. 
 
 "Zeta-Jones' de Havilland refers to Joan Fontaine as her 'bitch sister,' an offensive term that stands in stark contrast with Olivia de Havilland's reputation for good manners, class and kindness," writes Smith. 
 
 The actress says defendants knew or recklessly disregarded publicly available information that she is alive, she never gave an interview about the relationship between Davis and Crawford, and that she maintains a reputation for avoiding gossip mongering. 
 
 In April, de Havilland told THR she hadn't seen the show, but "in principle, I am opposed to any representation of personages who are no longer alive to judge the accuracy of any incident depicted as involving themselves." Apparently, she's seen it now and she isn't pleased. 
 
 "Each FX defendant knew 'Feud' would be more successful if they placed an individual like Olivia de Havilland, who is known for her honesty and integrity, at the forefront of the story," writes Smith. "Her credibility, as both the only living person of significance portrayed in 'Feud' and as a reliable source who was close to the action, added to the success of 'Feud' at the expense of Olivia de Havilland." 
 
 She's suing for infringement of common law right of publicity, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment and is asking the court for not only damages but also any profits gained from the use of her likeness and an injunction to keep FX from continuing to use her name and likeness. 
 
 FX declined to comment on the complaint, which is posted in full below.
– Potato/potahto. Tomato/tomahto. Dragon lady/bitch. A lawyer for FX argues the two insults are interchangeable. A lawyer for Olivia de Havilland disagrees in the 101-year-old actress' lawsuit against the producers of the miniseries Feud: Bette and Joan. Variety reports the two sides were in court Tuesday, with FX attempting to get the case tossed. De Havilland says she wasn't consulted about the project and was portrayed as "gossipy," according to USA Today. While de Havilland is on record as having once called her sister Joan Fontaine a "dragon lady," her attorney says the "honest, closed-mouthed, ladylike" actress would never have used the word "bitch," as she was portrayed as doing in Feud. "The creators of Feud not only used my identity without my consent, but they also put false words in my mouth," the Los Angeles Times quotes de Havilland as saying. FX attorney Kelly Klaus says Feud's portrayal of de Havilland was largely positive and using vulgarity isn't entirely out of character for de Havilland, who once allegedly said, "I don't like to play bitches." The network says it changed "dragon lady" to "bitch" for a modern audience, arguing the two are synonymous. De Havilland's attorney, Suzelle Smith, disagrees: “In my household, if you say the word ‘bitch,’ you get your mouth washed out.” The network is also arguing free speech. "She is a public figure and the matters discussed in Feud are of public interest," says Klaus, who also notes de Havilland would have to prove the producers acted with malice. Experts say if de Havilland wins, it could have a chilling effect on free speech and future "docudramas." A decision is expected within 90 days.