Devil's Advocate?

But the Intermediate Louisiana Court of Appeals thought the case did have merit: It overturned the lower-court decision in May 1998. Stone and Time Warner asked both Louisiana's highest court and the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling, but both declined to do so. (Their Supreme Court request for review was supported by organizations like the MPAA, which had skirmished with Stone over the movie's violent content.) In March, the case returned to Amite for further proceedings.

Now the real horror begins. In his deposition, Stone can expect to be grilled about every aspect of the film. Since Simpson must prove that Stone and Time Warner intended to incite copycat crimes — and show that NBK directly advocated immediate violence — he has requested to see any document relating to it, including production notes, private journals, and any unused footage shot by Stone. Even Stone's own words may be used against him. A comment he made to The New York Times in April '96 is already being parsed: ''The most pacifistic people in the world said they came out of this movie and wanted to kill somebody.''

''That's a starting point to delve into Stone's mind,'' Simpson says in his polished Louisiana drawl. ''What did you mean when you said that? Did you decide it after you saw the first cut? If he thought that people were going to go out and murder people, he should've never released the film.''

Time Warner does not discuss pending litigation, but a company source believes Simpson's efforts are preposterous: ''Oliver Stone is one of the most respected filmmakers in the world, and he clearly had a strong artistic vision for this film. He was not just slapping images on the screen.''

Another issue Time Warner will have to contend with if the case moves to trial is just how Stone & Co. will play in Amite. ''In a jury trial,'' boasts Simpson, ''Stone will lose.'' Of course, that's if the case gets to trial. After Stone gives his deposition, his attorneys will ask the court to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. If all efforts fail, the case could come to trial a year from now.

Van Susteren thinks Stone and Time Warner should start to sweat at that point. ''When the plaintiffs go to trial, they'll hope the sentiment against violence will affect the decision-making process,'' she says. ''The statement Stone made could create a factual dispute. The comment isn't clear one way or the other, but as a lawyer...I'd be worried about it.''

The usually verbose Stone is understandably mum about the NBKcontroversy. ''I can't say anything about the case,'' he told EW. ''It's a word-driven case, and what I say is liable to be misinterpreted by lawyers. They're aggressive about this.'' — Additional reporting by Betty Cortina and Daneet Steffens