Until last week, we didn't know you could sue over a location's portrayal in a film. But a lawsuit filed by two residents of a Romanian village that served as a stand-in for Kazakhstan in the hit film "Borat" accused the filmmakers of misrepresenting an entire community.

We'll let the courts decide if the "Borat" suit has merit. But the village wouldn't be the first in cinematic history to get a bad rap on film.

We tried to imagine some of the lawsuits that could come to a courtroom near you if the residents of those maligned locations decided to seek justice:

___

VICTORIAN-ERA LONDON VS. EVERY FILM SET IN VICTORIAN-ERA LONDON: The old-time London of modern cinema is a pretty dreary place, known for Jack the Ripper, the Elephant Man, syphilis outbreaks and, worst of all, magicians. (Maybe we'll get a break after "The Prestige"?) Residents may want to roll up their ruffled sleeves and sue. That is, once they rustle up a judge in a funny wig.

VARIOUS CAMP SITES VS. "FRIDAY THE 13TH": Everyone who's ever been camping has heard that theirs was the camp where they filmed "Friday the 13th." It's time for camp sites to reclaim their reputations. The only downside would be the inevitable sequels: Various campsites vs. Freddy vs. Jason?

GOTHAM CITY VS. THE "BATMAN" MOVIES: Gotham really is a great town, despite the negative portrayals. A generous grant from Wayne Enterprises has helped the Gotham Civic Light Opera recover completely from the laughing-gas incident of 2003. Penguins haven't been stolen from their cages and outfitted with radio-operated lasers since the 1960s. And Arkham Asylum has again been designated 100 percent escape-proof. If the city files suit, lawyers be warned: Witnesses have been known to hide acid in the boutonnieres of their purple suits.

MONTE CARLO VS. "HERBIE GOES TO MONTE CARLO": Despite admirable turns by Dean Jones and Don Knotts, the stolen-diamonds-in-Herbie's-gas-tank plot of this 1977 outing plays to the most offensive stereotypes about Monte Carlo, suggesting the tourist paradise has nothing to offer except luxury and intrigue. Really, now: It also has gambling.

BLOOD MOUNTAIN VS. "THE LEGEND OF BLOOD MOUNTAIN": It's hard to calculate how many billions of dollars Blood Mountain has lost in tourist revenue since this 1965 film, which was totally unfair in its presentation of the mountain's occasional tendency to bleed human blood. (The movie is mentioned on the Internet, so it has to be real.)

MONSTER MOUNTAIN VS. "BLOOD BEAST OF MONSTER MOUNTAIN": Made in the same year as "The Legend of Blood Mountain," by the same director, this film made a greater effort to be fair. Despite this, it no doubt had some impact on tourism to Monster Mountain, a mountain ruled by a monster.

CHINATOWN VS. "CHINATOWN": You don't see the people in Chinatown getting involved in the movie's water-stealing scheme, do you? Or getting caught up in all the family drama? So why throw heat on them with the name?

THE SOUTHWEST VS. EVERY CRAZY-PERSON-ON-A-ROAD-TRIP MOVIE: Why are the Mickey and Mallory types always trolling through deserts?

PLANET OF THE APES VS. "PLANET OF THE APES": Not cool, "Planet of the Apes." The movie, we mean. Not the planet. The apes come off looking totally crazy, and that twist at the end with THEIR planet maybe being OUR planet may just earn the movie a lawsuit from BOTH planets. Unless they're the same planet. This may be a confusing case.

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY VS. "PLANET OF THE APES": Seriously, not cool.

___

asap contributor Tim Molloy is an editor on the AP's national desk.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.