Scarlett Johansson suing Disney — wintry the hand that has been feeding her career for the past decade — was a surprise. But the way the corporation responded was the real shocker.
In specimen you missed it, ScarJo is suing Disney for violate of contract over the simultaneous streaming home release of Black Widow. According to her legal filing, her contract promised an exclusively theatrical run, and her total pay was based on the box office performance. Because the distributor didn’t hold up their side — instead moreover streaming the mucosa as a $30 rental on Disney — she says they forfeit her virtually $50 million in bonuses.
Related: Emma Stone May Be The Next To Sue
After news of the lawsuit dropped, the Mouse House went right for the jugular — which, for a celeb, is bad PR. In a statement that made us do a double take, they accused the Avengers Endgame star of stuff some kind of ice queen who didn’t superintendency there was a pandemic. They wrote:
“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is expressly sad and distressing in its draconian condone for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
They moreover made a point of playing up the salary she had once made on the mucosa — saying streaming would make her increasingly “on top of the $20M she has received to date.” We don’t know well-nigh you, but we completely read that as an implication she was stuff greedy — as in, what, $20 mil isn’t enough??
We weren’t the only ones who thought Disney went too far, past the law and straight into personal attack.
Multiple women’s groups have partnered up to defend ScarJo, and increasingly to the point women in general, from these kinds of personal attacks. In a joint statement, Time’s Up, ReFrame, and Women In Film stated:
“While we take no position on the merchantry issues in the litigation between Scarlett Johansson and the Walt Disney Company, we stand firmly versus Disney’s recent statement which attempts to typify Johansson as insensitive or selfish for defending her contractual merchantry rights.”
Same! We do NOT pretend to know what’s going on with contract law — but where we do have an wide stratum is in idealism feuds, and these were some fighting words.
Related: ScarJo’s Agent Moreover Blasted The Statement
The statement remoter accused Disney of sexism, saying:
“This gendered weft wade has no place in a merchantry dispute and contributes to an environment in which women and girls are perceived as less worldly-wise than men to protect their own interests without facing ad hominem criticism.”
Inneresting. While they never specifically mention anything related to her gender, making her squint unreasonable — when all she’s doing is taking legal whoopee to protect her paycheck — is a pretty xerox sexist move.
The personal wade in unstipulated is very strange for this kind of legal battle. You usually only see this kind of thing in a nasty divorce. The fact vacated they decided to make it personal says quite a bit.
Do YOU think Disney’s statement was a “gendered” attack??
[Image via Marvel Studios/YouTube.]
CLICK HERE TO COMMENT