Black Widow's Widow

I sometimes feel like my love-hate relationship with Disney is harmful. On one hand, as I’ve said before, I love much of their work. On the other hand, I despise their business practices, especially when they harm people. That said, it seems like their behaviour is getting worse. Which brings me to their legal battle with Scarlett Johansson.

I’m sure everyone’s familiar with The MCU. It’s one of the biggest and most-profitable business ventures in Hollywood, with 24 films and several shows under its belt. Chances are you’ve heard of or seen one, and it isn’t slowing down anytime soon. If anything, the pandemic only set everything back a year. That says a lot.

Johansson’s contract with Marvel ended with Black Widow, her first solo film since the franchise began in 2008. Despite doing well critically, its box office returns were hampered by the pandemic. Disney was even forced to release it theatrically and on Disney+ simultaneously. The latter also included a Premier Access fee, but I’ve covered my thoughts on that already. Sufficed to say, it’s one of The MCU’s lowest-grossing entries.

I mention this because it’s relevant to a scandal that Disney’s engaged in. It turns out Johansson’s contract was breached, and now she’s suing. Disney, in turn, has pushed back, arguing that Johansson’s been inconsiderate and greedy. It’s been making waves, with Emily Blunt and Emma Stone contemplating suing over their contracts too. It’s messy.

I get the position Disney’s in, to an extent. They were planning for a straight-to-theatre release last Summer, but their plans were derailed by COVID. The movie kept getting delayed, until Disney went for a simultaneous release on Disney+. This was something they didn’t have full control over, and that needs to be factored into the equation.

That said, I still side with Johansson. She may not need the money, she’s one of Hollywood’s highest-paid stars, but her contract was strictly for a theatrical release. She didn’t get that. And while the pandemic forced Disney’s hand, her contract should’ve been modified. It’s a case of underhanded, corporate backstabbing, and she deserves compensation.

Additionally, Disney’s behaviour hasn’t made them look favourable. For one, the rhetoric they’ve used has been accused of misogynistic undertones. To quote their legal team:

“‘This lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.’”

This seems to imply that Johansson doesn’t care about the pandemic, something her legal team, and organizations like Time’s Up, have cited as an attack on her character. And while it’s not my place to comment directly, since I’m male, I have to wonder if the words “sad” and “distressing” would’ve been used if this were her male co-stars…

Two, it’s not like Disney can’t afford it. While many individuals have suffered in the past year and a half, Disney’s one of the outliers that’ve actually gained because of the pandemic. Shares have skyrocketed, with their Disney+ subscriber count jumping to over 100 million. Considering that, Johansson’s demands are miniscule. If anything, they’re a drop in the bucket.

And three, it’s more insult to injury for The House of Mouse’s. Remember, they opened their theme parks in the middle of the pandemic, despite warnings that it wasn’t safe. They’ve routinely put profit over those in their payroll, and this another example of that. So while I understand their decision to change their release, I don’t feel sympathy. Or, at least, I don’t feel sympathy for their wallets.

I’m interested in the ripple effects this could have for anyone who’s been slighted by Disney in recent years. Remember, Emma Stone and Emily Blunt have considered suing over Cruella and Jungle Cruise, two movies they starred in respectively. Their films were also shoved onto Disney+, and they probably felt slighted too. Especially if their contracts weren’t renegotiated.

Then there are future films. Free Guy currently has a theatre-only release, but if it bombs financially it could end up being moved to Disney+. And what about Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings? If that’s switched to Disney+ without warning because of the pandemic, will Simu Liu, the star, also sue? As it stands, nothing’s off the table.

This is the real litmus test. The pandemic has shifted releases to streaming services in large numbers, and while understandable, it raises ethical questions about actor contracts: should they be static, or flexible? Can they be changed based on unforeseen circumstances? And, if so, should the stars be consulted first? I’m no legal expert, but I’m sure these questions will surface in the future.

In Disney’s case, this lawsuit isn’t surprising. The Walt Disney Company has a history of shady practices, including Walt Disney’s alliance with The CIA to brand its striking animators as Communists and blacklist them in the 1940’s. The company’s coasted on deceit and lies, and this is another example. But whereas past endeavours are wrong, this, like the Cicely Daniher case, is something personal made public. It has legs, and it could reshape how big-name stars negotiate contracts.

In the end, it’s sad to see Disney use their image to deceive someone like that. Disney might make good movies, and they might have smart people working for them, but greed is greed. And it hurts people. Scarlett Johansson, a woman who’s been embroiled in controversy before, certainly doesn’t need the money, but it doesn’t matter. She was wronged, and she deserves to make it right. It’s about the principle.