Actress Eva Green has won her lawsuit over the failed film “A Patriot,” which centered around her $1 million fee for the movie. The case was heard at London’s High Court earlier this year, with Green claiming that she was still owed her fee under her “pay or play” contract, even though the movie had fallen apart. The production company White Lantern and film finance company Sherborne Media Finance, which took over White Lantern once the movie fell apart, disagreed with Green’s claim and counter-sued her for “conspiracy, deceit, and unlawful interference.” They claimed that she had deliberately sought to undermine the production and cause the film to collapse so she could buy out the script and make it herself.
However, Mr. Justice Michael Green, who presided over the case, found in Green’s favor and dismissed the counter-suit, saying in his judgment that “this was not part of some unlawful conspiracy or deceit,” and pointed out that the actor “desperately wanted to make the film.” Green hailed the judgment, saying that the experience had been “painful and damaging.”
The film, which was written and set to be directed by Dan Pringle, began to fall apart in 2019 after financing collapsed. Sherborne Media Finance stepped in to provide a “bridge” loan – most of which was used for Green’s fee – with the intention of getting the production back on track in order to secure proper funding. However, as the film market shifted and funding became elusive, Sherborne found themselves on the hook to actually make the movie in order to try and rescue the loan money they had provided.
Green alleged that they reduced the film’s $10 million budget and tried to scrimp on production, resulting in a “B shitty movie” that could potentially have ended Green’s career. She was particularly concerned about the appointment of producer Jake Seal to manage the project. In private WhatsApp messages produced during the discovery process, Green called Seal “evil” and the “devil” and referred to employees at his production facility Black Hanger Studios as “shitty peasants.” The public disclosure of the messages had been “humiliating” for Green.
With production finance dwindling, the production stalled entirely, effectively turning into a standoff between Green and White Lantern/Sherborne. If Green walked away, she would be in breach of her contract and lose the $1 million pay-or-play fee; if White Lantern acknowledged the film was dead, Green was entitled to the money.
During the trial, Green’s lawyer, Edmund Cullen KC, told the court that “we say this whole production was a shambles from beginning to end because it was built on sand.” In his judgment, Mr. Justice Green said, “She may have said some extremely unpleasant things about Mr. Seal and his crew at Black Hangar, but this was borne from a genuine feeling of concern that any film made under Mr. Seal’s control would be of very low quality and would not do justice to a script that she and the former directors were passionate about.”
However, the judge did say that he found Green to be a “frustrating and unsatisfactory witness” and that some of her explanations seemed to lack credibility. During her time on the witness stand, Green blamed her “Frenchness” for causing her to write the crude WhatsApp messages, which the judge did not find “credible or adequate.” But he accepted that Green had been motivated by her devotion to the project. “The Defendants sought to portray Ms. Green as acting unreasonably,” he wrote. “But it seems to me that she had committed to the film because she was passionate about it and wanted to make it as good as possible.”
The outcome of the lawsuit has brought an end to a long and tumultuous legal battle that has lasted for several months. It has also brought some significant attention to the film industry and the issue of actors' rights. The ruling has been hailed as a victory for Eva Green, who was able to successfully defend her rights and secure her pay, despite the significant challenges she faced.
The case has also raised some important questions about the role of film financing companies and their obligations to actors and filmmakers. In particular, the case has highlighted the challenges that actors can face when working on independent films, which often have limited budgets and face significant financial risks.
Despite the challenges that Green faced, the ruling has been praised by many in the film industry for setting an important precedent for actors and their rights. The ruling has also been seen as a reminder that actors should be treated with respect and that their rights should be protected, regardless of the size or budget of the film they are working on.
Moving forward, it is likely that this case will continue to be discussed and analyzed by filmmakers, actors, and film industry experts. It may also serve as a catalyst for further discussion and debate about the rights of actors in the film industry and the role of film financing companies in supporting independent film projects.
In conclusion, the outcome of the lawsuit has been a significant victory for Eva Green and a reminder of the importance of protecting the rights of actors in the film industry. While the case has been challenging and emotionally draining for Green, it has also brought attention to important issues and set a valuable precedent for the future. As the film industry continues to evolve and face new challenges, it is essential that the rights of actors and filmmakers are protected and respected.
