Tyra Banks is demanding access to hours of unseen interviews given by her former America’s Next Top Model colleagues as her defamation battle with Netflix and the documentary’s producers intensifies.
The supermodel wants the unedited footage of interviews with Jay Manuel, J. Alexander—widely known as Miss J—and Nigel Barker, including remarks that were left out of the final version of Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model.
In newly filed court documents, Banks challenged the producers’ argument that the documentary resulted from “ordinary editorial decisions”, contending that the complete recordings could reveal whether interviews were selectively edited to advance what she describes as a false and damaging narrative.
Banks demands footage that viewers never saw
Banks argues that the unedited interviews are relevant because Manuel, Miss J and Barker all worked closely with her during the long-running modelling competition.
Their comments featured prominently in the three-part Netflix documentary, which revisited controversies surrounding America’s Next Top Model and the treatment of former contestants.
Banks particularly wants to see everything her former colleagues told the filmmakers—not only the excerpts selected for broadcast.
She and Miss J were once especially close. In the documentary, Miss J discussed experiencing health problems and said Banks had not contacted or visited him.
Banks disputes the impression created by that segment and argues that access to the complete interview is necessary to establish what was said and how the programme’s editors constructed the final version.
Three-hour interview reduced to 16 minutes
Banks is suing Netflix, production company EverWonder Studio and directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan for defamation and other alleged wrongdoing.
She claims producers recorded roughly three and a half hours of her interview but included only about 16 minutes in the completed documentary.
According to her lawsuit, those extracts were edited and arranged in a way that omitted important context, removed comments in which she accepted responsibility for past mistakes and portrayed her as evasive or indifferent.
Netflix and the producers deny wrongdoing. They argue that Banks surrendered editorial control through her participation agreement and that her objections concern legitimate creative choices rather than defamatory falsehoods.
The defendants have asked the court to dismiss the case under laws protecting freedom of expression.
Sexual-assault segment at centre of dispute
One of Banks’ strongest objections concerns the documentary’s treatment of former contestant Shandi Sullivan’s experience during the show’s second cycle.
The incident was originally presented on America’s Next Top Model as Sullivan being unfaithful to her boyfriend after becoming intimate with a male model while filming in Milan.
Sullivan told the Netflix documentary that she had been heavily intoxicated, remembered only fragments of the incident and now believed she had been unable to consent.
When discussing production decisions in the documentary, Banks said: “It’s a little difficult for me to talk about production because that’s not my territory.”
Banks claims the editing made her appear unable or unwilling to remember the account of a contestant who said she had been sexually assaulted.
In her lawsuit, Banks maintains that she was unaware Sullivan viewed the incident as sexual assault and was not told that Sullivan would appear in the documentary. She argues that she was therefore never given an opportunity to respond directly to the allegation during her interview.
Netflix denies creating a false narrative
The documentary’s producers maintain that the series presents several perspectives on the legacy and controversies of America’s Next Top Model.
Netflix says the programme does not accuse Banks of causing Sullivan’s experience and denies manipulating her answers into defamatory statements.
Banks is seeking unspecified damages for alleged reputational, emotional and financial harm. She has also requested an order preventing the continued use of her image in certain promotional materials connected to the documentary.
Her attempt to obtain the complete interviews could become central to whether she can prove that omissions and editing decisions materially changed the meaning of what participants said.
Discover more from Daily Mast
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
